Google isn’t so much a company as it is a programmers cult.
TJ
A programmer at Google
April 6, 2011
[I talked with him for over an hour. He had me convinced the above assessment is correct. Their culture is very different.—Joe]
Gun Nuts and InSights
I have taken numerous classes from Insights and put family members through many of their classes. I have always been very, very impressed with them. Check out all the posts I have made mentioning them.
Yesterday Caleb from Gun Nuts Media sent me a link to a media release saying he is partnering with InSIghts.
I know Apparently Caleb has taken at least one class from Insights and shared my enthusiasm for them. I expect he will continue to be impressed with both the people and the training.
Quote of the day–William P. Hoar
The President says he believes in the Second Amendment, which one supposes is gracious of him, but in his op-ed he also snidely refers to the beliefs of those who are concerned with Second Amendment liberty as being engaged in “wedge issues and stale political debates.”
The crimes on January 8 were the killing of six people and the wounding of 13 others. The response should not be — as is usually the case with gun restrictions — for the federal government to target law-abiding Americans.
William P. Hoar
April 5, 2011
Gun Controllers Don’t Want to Waste Tucson Tragedy
[I would like to also point out that if the President really thinks the Second Amendment is a “stale political debate” then he can stop bringing up gun control and tell the Brady Campaign and their ilk he is not interested in talking to them.—Joe]
My Time with the Lady
This looks like an interesting play:
From 1987 to 1992, Richardson worked on and off as a cashier, janitor, doorman and occasional bouncer at Seattle’s Lusty Lady peepshow. It was the dream job for a young man from Walla Walla who received the education of a lifetime, becoming familiar with the inner workings of an adult establishment and the people who worked on its stages and behind the scenes. During those years Richardson watched the Lady change, as First Avenue evolved from a seedy waterfront district known as “Flesh Avenue” into an upscale yuppie stretch of condos, restaurants and large art institutions.
Richardson blends comedy, pathos and business analysis in a series of stories that explore the sometimes seamy but always fascinating world of The Lusty Lady, creating a portrait as brash, lively and unusual as the Lady’s infamous marquee.
I’m sure Barb and I walked past this establishment many times. They closed in 2010 when “the Lusty Lady ran out of steam and succumbed to a one-two punch of recession and free Internet porn.”
Maybe Barb and I will have time to go see the play soon.
Sororities raise money for Brady Campaign
How ironic. All that effort spent raising money for an organization that wants them helpless on their own campuses:
Theta Chi wasted no time coming back from Spring Break by throwing their 2nd annual War of the Roses Week. The week-long philanthropy event raised over $2,100 to support the Brady Campaign, which is an organization designed to prevent gun violence.
If they didn’t want to have guns then don’t buy them. But don’t give money to an organization that works to remove other peoples right to choose—including my daughters and nieces.
Maybe I can encourage the young women in my family going to college to work on a fund raiser for the Second Amendment Foundation.
Random thought of the day
If it weren’t so deadly serious I would find it quite amusing that anti-gun activists get all bent out of shape and claim they feel threatened when millions of people peaceably carry concealed firearms in public every day. Yet they advocate passing laws that would mandate those same peaceable people give up their defensive tools at the point of a policeman’s gun and claim we are the ones threatening violence.
Quote of the day—Mathew Nosanchuk
When Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed briefs in the Supreme Court embracing the expansive individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, we warned that the primary beneficiaries of the Ashcroft Justice Department’s novel interpretation would be criminal defendants. An expansive individual right under the Second Amendment simply is not supported by history of the Constitution or binding Supreme Court precedent and threatens to undermine the Justice Department’s enforcement of existing gun laws.
“Now, the chickens have come home to roost. As the Washington Post today reported, the defendants are charged in separate cases with unlawful possession of a handgun and ammunition respectively. They both rely explicitly on the Justice Department’s briefs “and a memorandum from Attorney General Ashcroft to all 93 U.S. Attorneys in which he directs them to follow his interpretation of the Second Amendment” to support their Second Amendment challenges to the District’s gun laws. According to the brief in one of the cases: “As made clear by the various government representations, the United States now understands and represents before tribunals that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual and personal right, not a collective right of the state to form a militia.’ On this basis, the defendants seek to have the District’s laws, which impose a virtual ban on the private possession of handguns and ammunition, struck down.
Mathew Nosanchuk
Violence Policy Center’s litigation director and legislative counsel
May 30, 2002
Statement of Violence Policy Center in Response to D.C. Gun Crime Defendants Using U.S. Department of Justice Second Amendment Policy Shift to Strike Down Gun Laws
[I’m sure there were similar complaints when challenges were made against whites only drinking fountains and restrooms, and prohibitions against mix race marriages.
Undermining existing unconstitutional and discriminatory laws are a good thing.
That the VPC put itself on a parallel track headed into the same dustbin in history, nearly nine years ago, as the KKK is icing on the cake.—Joe]
Bill Clinton
In an interview discussing his support for arming the Libyan rebels, Bill Clinton was quoted:
“We’re trying to build a world in which people resolve their differences
in nonviolent ways,” he said. “And we’re trying to build a world where
no ruler can cavalierly kill its unarmed civilians.”
Using their own data against them
For those that regard facts, correlation, truth, and falsity important (i.e. people unlike MikeB302000 and other anti freedom people) this is an awesome article.
Here are some of the graphs to give you a hint of the content:
Obviously as gun ownership increases there is more freedom.
Gun ownership goes up when the economy of the nation is better.
Homicide has a slight negative correlation with gun ownership. But this graph doesn’t tell the complete story because it doesn’t include the murder of citizens by their governments. Nearly 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th Century. All the major genocides were enabled by strict gun control. These numbers are not included in the above graph and if included they would give the above graph a huge negative correlation.
As gun ownership goes up the corruption goes down. I find this one of the most interesting graphs. I wonder about the causation. Do corrupt government restrict gun ownership out of fear or is corruption lower because people own guns? Both? Neither?
Quote of the day—Ed Meese
You couldn’t even prove the White House staff sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ed Meese
On the Hinckley verdict regarding the shooting of President Regan.
[I should have posted this on March 30, the 30 year anniversary of the shooting, but I forgot about it.
While there is a great deal of hyperbole in this quote it does have a grain of truth.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Karl Marx
The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.
Karl Marx
[In this age with both state and Federal government collapsing from the weight of “entitlements” I find the irony of this funny in a very sad, sick sort of way.—Joe]
No clue
Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the lack of a rational thought process. This particular instance is brought to you by Elizabeth Guernsey, 26, a graduate of Trinity College who is pursuing a master’s degree in “urban studies”. “Urban studies” probably explains everything:
In fact, the federal government has passed only three major pieces of gun legislation over the past century. Two of these bills followed the assassination and attempted assassination of public officials. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it illegal to carry hand grenades and machine guns. The Firearms Act of 1968, passed after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, regulates the firearm industry and prevents interstate firearm transfers. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, named for James Brady, who was shot during the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, requires background checks for those purchasing firearms.
These pieces of federal law are critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities. Perhaps we should applaud politicians for using the moment after a president or congresswoman is shot to push for improved gun regulations. But why have public officials been unable to pass laws in light of the 9,484 ordinary people killed each year by gun violence?
First off, these three laws are far from all the Federal laws on the books. Alan Korwin has an entire book on just Federal Gun Laws—all 271 of them.
Next, the laws she describes as “critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities” actually created “illegal guns”. Machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors weren’t “illegal” until it was required that an exorbitant tax (at the time) was placed on them with NFA 1934. Without registering the gun and paying the tax the guns were illegal to be privately owned. Again, GCA 1968 prohibiting the private transfers of firearms across state lines created “illegal guns”. And finally the background check mandated by the Brady Act in 1993 has nothing to do with guns. It only has to do with people. Her statement about the criticality of the laws in “keeping illegal guns out of our community” is a total disconnect from reality.
Finally, as pointed out by the CDC and others there is no evidence that any of the gun laws on the books has made communities safer. I find it very telling that neither the issue of effectiveness of laws infringing upon a specific enumerated right, or the issue that such a right even exists was mentioned by Ms. Guernsey. But what do you expect from someone who has crap for brains and the best they can do to establish self-esteem is attempt to acquire a degree in “urban studies”?
Quote of the day—Brad Kozak
Operation Down-Low began over a friendly game of Horse at the White House, between members of the Fox News White House detail, the Secret Service and the President. After several beers and bumps, the President was encouraged to consider the option to offer an olive branch to the right and join the NRA. The following morning, it was made clear to the President that he had indeed bet Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler that if he lost, he would join the NRA.
Goler won the game by three points. While the President strongly protested, NRA negotiators pointed out that there was video of both the bet and the game itself, and that the President would lose his core constituency of black voters if word got out that he not only welched on a bet, but did so with a fellow homeboy.
Brad Kozak
April 1, 2011
Obama Joins the NRA
[I don’t usually get into the April 1st stuff (there are exceptions), but I thought this was pretty good.—Joe]
More Boomershoot 2011 positions available
There are now a total of five positions available for Boomershoot 2011. Sign up here.
H222 (Idaho Campus Carry) Senate Hearing
During the hearing on H222 one senator suggested that campus carry was an “intellectual exercise”.
This bill was not an intellectual exercise for any of the people who supported it. I do not believe that I can explain our motivations better than the following excerpt from the case of State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008) (emphasis added):
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The district court sentenced Payne to death for the murder of Samantha Maher after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping, raping, robbing, and murdering Maher.
On July 6, 2000, Payne abducted Maher from Julia Davis Park in Boise. That morning, he left his home as if to go to work, even kissing his wife goodbye, but instead drove to the park. Payne had with him a loaded .22 Ruger and several recent purchases: handcuffs, latex gloves, detailed maps and atlases of Oregon, and camping gear. Payne approached Maher around 10:15 that morning as she was arriving for her class at Boise State University. Carrying the handgun, Payne forced Maher into the front seat of her car. He then handcuffed her wrists and drove her car to an unknown location. After sexually assaulting her, Payne raped Maher, leaving bruises, cuts and scrapes on her face, back, and buttocks. After the rape, Payne placed the handgun at the back of Maher’s head and shot her. Payne then placed Maher’s body in the back seat of her car and drove to his rented home, a former dairy farm, near Nampa. He disposed of her body by dumping it in a concrete drainage tank containing water and debris near one of the barns on the property. He went into his home, ate some left-over pizza, and left a note under a bed pillow for his wife. He took Maher’s keys and purse containing her credit cards and drove to the Oregon coast and then on to Eugene, Oregon the next day.
Prosecutors Must Produce Witness Testimony to Prove Firearm Registration
Via email from Michel & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law:
The California Court of Appeals has ruled that handgun registration information cannot be admitted into evidence at trial without accompanying witness testimony and an opportunity for a defense attorney to cross-examine that witness. People v. Sanchez (2011 DJ DAR 4269; DJ, 3/24/11; C/A 6th). This is good news for firearm owners.
Mr. Sanchez was charged with carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle without a permit. The handgun was loaded, and was allegedly not registered. Under Penal Code section 12025(a)(1)/(b)(6), if an illegally concealed or loaded firearm is not registered then the criminal offense, which is usually a misdemeanor, can be charged as a much more serious felony. In the Sanchez case the District Attorney sought to prove that Sanchez’ firearm was not registered by trying to admit into evidence a certified document from the California Department of Justice stating the custodian of records had conducted “a diligent search of the Automated Firearms System… for the Firearm Ownership History of Jose Gonzalez Sanchez…” and that the “search revealed no record.” 2011 DJ DAR 4269; p. 11, 12. But the document was determined to be “testimonial” (i.e. ‘[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact’). And testimonial evidence requires an actual witness to take the stand, provide the evidence to the court and jury and, most importantly, be cross-examined by the defendant’s attorney. 2011 DJ DAR 4269; p. 23.
What does all this mean for firearm owners?
Registration and permitting databases kept by the State are not always accurate. In fact, errors are common. A defendant should never accept a written declaration or document as evidence that a firearm was not properly registered, or that the defendant lacked the correct permit. Prosecutors should be held to their burden of proof and compelled to offer sworn witness testimony to the court and jury that the defendant did not properly register and/or possess the correct permit. Because the firearm registration system is subject to much criticism for inaccuracy, prior to trial all government reports on the accuracy of the database should be subpoenaed, a database expert should be consulted, and a careful cross-examination should be prepared.
The offenses where this rule applies include carrying an unregistered loaded handgun (Penal Code section 12031(a)(1)/(2)(F)); possession of an unregistered concealed handgun (12025(a)(1)/(b)(6)); importation, sales, and/or possession of an “assault weapon” or “.50 BMG rifle” (12280(a), (b) and (c)); possession of a “destructive device” (12303); possession of one of the dangerous weapons listed in Penal Code section 12020(a)(1); importation and/or sales of large capacity magazines (12020(a)(2)); and possession of a “machinegun” (12220). There are other situations where the testimonial rule would apply as well.
Historically, registration and permitting documents like these had been allowed into evidence in court without the testimony of the preparer under the “business records” exception to the hearsay exclusion rule. The “business records” exception to the hearsay rule allowed out of court statements, in this case documents, if they were prepared in the ordinary course of one’s business. But the Supreme Court determined even if these were “business records” they were prepared for the purpose of trial, were testimonial, and therefore required the presence of a witness to testify. 129 S.Ct. at pp. 2538-2540.
The Sanchez decision follows two Supreme Court decisions establishing the law on the topic. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court declared that under the Sixth Amendment testimonial statements must be subject to cross examination at trial. Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36. So if a statement is obtained outside of the courtroom for purposes of prosecution, the person who made the statement must be subject to cross-examination by the defense or the statement cannot be used as evidence. This holding was expanded in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ( (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2527). Under a Massachusetts state law, prosecutors were allowed to enter “certificates of analysis” to prove that an item was a “controlled substance” instead of having an actual person testify at trial. 129 S.Ct. at pp. 2530, 2531. The Supreme Court determined that this was unconstitutional according to the analysis in Crawford. In order to enter the information as evidence a witness would need to be present to testify to establish the illegality of the substance. 129 S.Ct. at p. 2532.
If facing charges for one or more of the previously mentioned offenses, gun owners should be sure that their attorney is aware of these Supreme Court rulings, as well as the Sanchez decision, and forces the prosecution to be held to their burden of proof and provide sworn witness testimony regarding registration and permitting documents.
Quote of the day—Christopher Burg
Carry laws are in place in every state except Wisconsin and Illinois. To this day no evidence can be brought forth demonstrating these laws have lead to an increase in violent crime but much evidence exists demonstrating these laws correlate with a lowering in violent crime. Yet the Brady Campaign continues to warn about the “blood in the streets” that’s inevitable when carry laws are passed. Why are these people still clinging to their failed belief that guns are the problem? Because not doing so will cause them to lose their Joyce Foundation funding and then they would have to go find real jobs.
…
The bottom line is carry permits have been nothing but beneficial. There hasn’t been a single valid argument made against passing liberalized (in the classical sense of the word) carry laws. So far no “blood in the streets” instance have occurred and frankly the laws have been on the books in some states for decades. You would think the anti-gunners would wake up and realize nothing they’ve said has come true and thus their argument has no weight. Then again for most anti-gunners their argument is emotional and logic can go take a flying fuck and a rolling doughnut.
Christopher Burg
March 31, 2011
Brady Campaign Whining About Illinois Possibly Lifting Their Carry Ban
[Yup!—Joe]
Steel Challenge 2011 World Shoot
It’s time to sign up for the 2011 Steel Challenge World Shoot.
The match is August 18 – 21 in Piru California. The registration form is here.
Boomershoot 2011 positions available.
At about 6:00 PM PDT this evening (Wednesday, March 30) positions 33 and 59 for Boomershoot 2011 will be made available to the general public because the current holders of those positions canceled.
After 6:00 PM go to http://entry.boomershoot.org/ to sign up.
Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan
We must, once again, confine military firepower to the battlefield, by reinstating a ban on high-capacity ammo clips. Why hasn’t such legislation long ago been enacted?
Usually such a question prompts a discussion of the NRA’s outsized political power – its resources, its tactics of threats and intimidation, and the commitment of its cadre of true believers. Indeed, in recent years, the gun control issue has become so dominated by the question of whether stronger gun laws can be enacted, that it has left little room to address the real issue – whether stronger gun laws should be enacted.
Dennis Henigan
Brady Center Vice President
March 29, 2011
Jim and Sarah Brady: Beyond Politics to Idealism
[To answer the first question, because it is pointless. I have demonstrated that with my video. Furthermore the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored study said, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
What is he implying with the statement “outsized political power”? Does this mean he thinks there should be some regulation of political power in this country? Perhaps when blacks/Jews/homosexuals get a little too uppity they should be silenced or at least put in their place. Or is it just those people that exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms that should be put down when their numbers get a little too big for the politicians to ignore?
As to whether stronger gun laws should be enacted. I think that discussion was settled with the Heller and McDonald U.S. Supreme Court decisions. But like the KKK that didn’t really accept the results of the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves Henigan and Brady Campaign can’t seem to get past the fact that they lost.—Joe]