The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.
Labels: gun rights Labels: transgender
Never forget!
I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win
I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
The New Voting Machines in California
They make the problems of hanging chads seem pretty small potatoes:Perusing the results by county, one notices something odd: Alameda, Kern, and Plumas county report 0 voters not voting on the recall question. Zero. In every other county, the rate goes from 0.5% in Yolo County (representing 271 voters out of 56005 total) and 0.7% in Alpine County (representing 4 voters out of 575) to 10.3% in Sierra County (168 out of 1632), with Los Angeles County recording the second highest rate, at 8.9% (195 thousand out of 2.2 million).
Alameda County is huge. Now, it is true that it doesn't make much sense to go to vote and fail to vote on the recall election--but unless they simply discarded all of these ballots that didn't vote on the recall, this is just about impossible. Not a single voter screwed up and neglected to mark either yes or no? Remember that there were two propositions on the ballot as well--I would expect at least some voters who voted only on those propositions, and nothing else.
Gee, Why Am I Not Seeing Any Coverage Of This?
From the Weekly Standard: OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in
some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
Abercrombie & Fitch
I know that there was a big fuss about the number of naked young men in their catalog a couple of years ago. (I mean, after all, they're selling clothes--why would they put clothes on their models?) This column indicates that things just aren't getting any better:Forty-five specific portrayals of sexual imagery in the first 120 pages, advice to the readers ... this is how the new Abercrombie & Fitch Quarterly titled "The Christmas Field Guide" begins its new quarterly magazine that is targeted to your 10- to 13-year-olds. The 45 images include overt portrayals of group sex, lots of teen and young adult nudity, men kissing, and teens /young adults frolicking in a river engaging in sexual activity in multiple group settings.
Fortunately, my children have never shown an interest in buying Abercrombie & Fitch--too preppie and vacuous for them.
...
Well, in this year's issue in the "sexpertise" column on page 279, a lady presumably qualified to be referred to as a "sexpert" states that kids going to college this year, "shouldn't be looking for someone to marry." Nope, when it comes to sex, kids should be "focused on getting experience." The "sexpert" is also asked about and gives advice concerning the issue of doing "sex for three." She also advises readers to be willing to "go down" on a date at the movies, "just so long as you do not disturb those around you." And, of course, what kind of column would a "sexpertise" column be if it did not address the issue of self-stimulation.
Alabama's Constitution
One reader pointed out to me:I think that you have ignored a more pertinent section of the Alabama Constitution. Specifically, Article 1 Section 3:
This is an understandable reading of the provision in question. Notice how this provision specifies that "no religion shall be established by law" but when it comes to preferences none shall be given "to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship". Why do they use the word religion in one place, but a lot more specific set of descriptions on the preferences section? This conforms to the standard of the early Republic at the federal level: no particular religion was established, but a clear preference existed for Christianity. No particular denomination within Christianity enjoyed special favor, however. (Of course, at the state level, some states did have established religions, and many required officeholders to be Christians--though no particular denomination was required.)
"That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."
By placing the Ten Commandments into the courthouse ANYWHERE, much less in a prominent location where all who entered MUST see it, is CLEARLY GIVING PREFERENCE to a religious sect.
Further, since the placement is BY the CHIEF JUSTICE of the Alabama Supreme Court, he has implied and given actual preference to Christianity.
The manner of his ejection is more suspect. Though the 14th Amendment may apply, I think this was a state issue, that Alabama's constitution dealt with completely - as you noted.
Keep up the good work.
Humor: Why Should You Never Trust Email
From a friend: A couple from Minneapolis needed a long weekend in Florida - to thaw
out during one particularly icy winter. They planned to stay at the same
hotel where they had spent their honeymoon. Because both had jobs, it was
hard to coordinate their travel schedules. They decided that he would fly to
Florida on a Thursday and she would follow him the next day.
Upon arriving as planned, the husband checked into the hotel. There was
a computer in his room, so he sent his wife an e-mail back in Minneapolis.
However, he accidentally mis-typed the address.
In Houston, a widow had just returned from her husband's funeral. She
checked her e-mail, expecting messages from relatives and friends. Upon
reading the first message, she fainted. The widow's son rushed into the
room, found his mother on the floor and saw the computer screen which read:
T0: My Loving Wife
Subject: I've Arrived.
I know you are surprised to hear from me. They have computers here now
and you are allowed to send e-mail to loved ones. I've just arrived, have
been checked in and I see that everything has been prepared for your arrival tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing you then! Hope your journey is as
uneventful as mine was.
P.S. Sure is hot down here!
I'll Be On KSCO 1080 AM in Santa Cruz, California Sunday Afternoon
Robbie the Gun Guy will have me on his program 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Sunday afternoon. If you are in the Santa Cruz area, listen in!
The ACLU's Shameless Opposition to Constitutional Government
I try. I really do try, to understand the ACLU's bizarre theories of constitutional government, but arguments like this make me hold them in utter contempt. Professor Volokh has ably pointed out the absurdity of calling the Nebraska Constitution's definition of marriage a "bill of attainder."
My objection is a bit deeper than this. The plaintiffs in this case, including the ACLU, are arguing that this provision of the Nebraska Constitution is a "bill of attainder" because it prevents homosexuals from lobbying their legislators to pass laws that legalize gay marriage, civil unions, etc. What this means is that the ACLU believes that a constitutional provision that limits the authority of the majority to pass laws is therefore inherently unconstitutional.
As Professor Volokh points out, nearly every limitation on legislature power has the same effect. By the same reasoning, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press prevents interest groups from lobbying for prior restraint laws; the Fifth Amendment's protection against forced self-incrimination prevents prosecutors from lobbying for laws requiring defendants to testify against themselves; the Seventh Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishments prevents Americans from lobbying Congress to bring back drawing and quartering; the "right to privacy" that popped up in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973) prevents Americans from lobbying Congress and the states from banning first trimester abortions and sales of condoms.
The ACLU has no shame. It has spent most of a century arguing against unlimited democracy, based on the written guarantees contained in the Constitution and its amendments, that require large supermajorities to amend. Now it is arguing against a constitutional provision passed by a large supermajority because it interferes with unlimited democracy.
It's Going To Be An Interesting Supreme Court Term...
Professor Volokh reports that the 9th Circuit has just ruled that the federal government lacks authority to regulate homemade machine gun manufacturing. This is based on the lack of interstate commerce involved, and therefore, no federal authority. (Obviously, this doesn't affect state authority to regulate machine gun manufacture.)
UPDATE: And here's the link to the decision. What can you say when a decision cites an article in The Freeman (now Ideas on Liberty? The case does emphasize that the Second Amendment does not recognize an individual right--even though I know that the judge who wrote this opinion was a strong defender of the individual right view of the Second Amendment a few months back. Kozinski is obligated to follow the precedents of the 9th Circuit on this, and that is what he has done.
I would also argue that at least part of what is going on here may be a tit-for-tat action. Kozinski's argument is based on the precedent in U.S. v. McCoy (9th Cir. 2003) which struck down a conviction involving child pornography made at home, and that was not sold or transferred--written by Judge Reinhardt, the notoriously liberal judge responsible for the Pledge of Allegiance decision, and the absurdly Silveira v. Lockyer decision.
UPDATE: Never make a decision until all your appeals are exhausted. From coverage of the case, discussing the future for Robert Stewart, who was appealing his conviction:Stewart, meanwhile, faces about a 20-year sentence next week after being convicted this summer of soliciting a fellow prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix to kill U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, the judge who last year sentenced him to five years on the weapons violations.
UPDATE 2: Larry Solum points out the analogy to marijuana is quite strong.
What Takes Priority? Federal Judges or the Constitution?
As you are probably aware, Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has been removed from office for failing to obey a federal court order to remove that Ten Commandments monument from the state building where Moore had placed. You may recall that I have had some misgivings about how Moore placed it there; no discussion with other justices; no advance discussion or warning; it just appeared one night. I don't think that was an appropriate way to do it.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no question in my mind that putting a copy of the Ten Commandments in a government building is constitutional. Many of the state constitutions from the Revolutionary period are explicit about the preferred legal status of Christianity, and the official actions of Congress are pretty clear about the status of religion in general (and Christianity in particular) in America. I am quite confident that the First Congress would have regarded having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse as an entirely appropriate and fitting action.
Instapundit says: If judges don't obey court orders, who will?
Moore's argument is that he took an oath to obey the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions--and that is not the same as obeying a federal judge. Who defines what is the Constitution? Judges? What happens when they decide wrongly--indeed, when their decision is clearly wrong? Should state judges who refused to obey orders based on Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) have been removed from office by their peers? Or should the voters who have responsibility for electing judges do that?
Oh yes: it's always worthwhile to consider what the current Alabama Constitution has to say: We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:
It's not explicitly Christian, of course--but can you imagine the convention that adopted language like that deciding that there's no place for the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse?
UPDATE: Maybe I'm missing something here, but the Alabama Constitution has a specific procedure for removing justices from the Supreme Court, and it doesn't seem to fit the description of what's going on. Is the official copy of the Alabama Constitution that I have found incorrect?The governor, lieutenant-governor, attorney-general, state auditor, secretary of state, state treasurer, superintendent of education, commissioner of agriculture and industries, and justices of the supreme court may be removed from office for willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or intemperance in the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotics to such an extent, in view of the dignity of the office and importance of its duties, as unfits the officer for the discharge of such duties, or for any offense involving moral turpitude while in office, or committed under color thereof, or connected therewith, by the senate sitting as a court of impeachment, under oath or affirmation, on articles or charges preferred by the house of representatives.
Amazing The Reactions...
A few days ago, I brought to Eugene Volokh's attention that the psychiatrist who spearheaded the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III has performed a study that shows that at least for some significant fraction of homosexuals, it is possible to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual. This isn't just a matter of changing the homosexual's sexual behavior, but their preference and the sex of the object of their affection. Professor Volokh blogged about this, and the efforts being made in Britain to criminalize even discussion of this possibility.
Professor Volokh's point was that anything that enhances the freedom of the individual is a good thing; that if someone isn't comfortable with being homosexual, and if it is an option for a homosexual to become heterosexual, then having this as an option is a good thing. (More than a few homosexuals that I have talked have told me, "Why would anyone choose to be homosexual?") Yet there are bloggers prepared to argue the point, such as Eric Muller. I have tried to make sense of Muller's argument, but as near as I can tell, it boils down to, "You really can't change preferences, and even trying will just increase human misery."
Once again, we are reminded that the struggle about homosexuality isn't about freedom. As I have repeatedly pointed out, homosexual activists have been major players in suppressing freedom of speech. I could accept libertarian ideas about "what you do in private is constitutionally protected" if this position were consistently applied, and if homosexuals would actually keep their behavior private. Naked men masturbating on floats in the middle of Market Street isn't private; public sex in public places isn't private; demanding state sanction for marriage isn't private; demanding that companies be required to provide domestic partners coverage isn't private; demanding that the government spend more money on AIDS research isn't private.
UPDATE: Tyler Cowen, also at the Volokh Conspiracy, seems to think it would be a bad thing for homosexuals to have the option of being heterosexual--because it would increase pressure on homosexuals to change. Huh? What pressure? We live in a society that is fiercely, proudly, and beginning to be coercively pro-homosexual. Mr. Cowen goes on to say, It is no accident that many gay people wish to promote awareness of their belief (which I share) that gayness is commonly a basic orientation from birth, not a later lifestyle choice.
I doubt that it is a "lifestyle choice" in the sense that some fundamentalists think that it is, but this "basic orientation from birth" claim requires some evidence to back it up--not just an assertion. I've mentioned in the past that there are scattered pieces of evidence that suggest otherwise. How else does one explain the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health survey that found 48% of lesbians and 28% of male homosexuals reported having been sexually molested as children? What are we to make of studies that show that lesbians are 10 to 15 times overrepresented among women injection drug abusers?
UPDATE: Volokh has since blogged about an even more bizarre email he has received on this subject. You may be wondering, after you read the email, and Professor Volokh's response--why this hostility to the possibility of homosexuals voluntarily moving away from this? Some of this is just identity politics, I suspect--if the number of people who identify themselves as homosexual shrinks, it puts the political movement at risk, because power in politics is a combination of money and votes.
I suspect that there's another factor as well. Who wants to be the last person to leave the party? Or worse, what if you suspect that others may be able to free themselves of this lifestyle of death and hedonism--and you are afraid that you are stuck in it?
Back in 1991, I saw this very, very interesting statement from D. Owen Rowley in a newsgroup devoted to homosexual socializing. Before you read it and wonder about its relevance, think long and hard about this statement he is making. If you think that religion of any sort is a bunch of nonsense, fine. But why was Mr. Rowley encouraging homosexuals raised Catholic to take this step if he thought it was just hocus-pocus nonsense? It doesn't make any sense to do this--unless you believe that it isn't just superstitious nonsense:Actually I usually council catholics who wish to undo the spiritual
damage of their upbringing, to blaspheme the holy ghost.
That's the one unforgivable sin..
The Church will attempt to string you along, wringing tribute from you no
matter what sin you commit except that one. .. One little act of blasphemy,
and POOF.. you're unpardonable, and free of them forever.
Degrading Women
From the Seattle Times: Saturday night at Bonzai in Pioneer Square, a nearly naked woman is laid out on a table. A chef slices sushi behind her, to be arrayed on her torso, bare except for a sheath of plastic wrap and some decorative flower petals.
Does this sort of thing really make domestic and sexual violence more prevalent? I don't really think so--but it is something that I expect to read about in a work about the Roman Empire, not the United States of America.
Chopsticks at the ready, patrons line up.
Hours earlier, across town on the campus of the University of Washington, eight activists, mostly Asian-American women, express outrage at what they call the prostitution of sushi and the exploitation of women. They plot their strategy.
Welcome to a clash of values — Seattle style.
While the promoter and the sushi model say this melding of prandial and sexual is performance art, Bonzai's patrons — men and women of various ethnicities — say it merely adds to the restaurant's sensual vibe.
Opponents say treating women like a serving platter reinforces attitudes that make domestic and sexual violence so prevalent.
"It's dehumanizing, the manner in which people are buying and selling sushi to be eaten off a woman's body. It's dehumanizing to be treated as a plate," said Cherry Cayabyab, president of the Seattle chapter of National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum. Naked sushi carries no connotation of exploitation in its native Japan, said Bonzai regular Danielle Kim of Newcastle.
Some men in the room were slightly more flip in their endorsement.
"It appeals to puerile interests, I suppose, but what the hell?" said Keith Ancker, 28, of Seattle. He said he'd never tried sushi until now.
That's part of the point, says Hong, the owner, to bring sushi to non-sushi-eaters. Sushi is a sensitive and artistic food, and he means no disrespect to women, he said.
Wisconsin State Senate Sends Concealed Carry Bill to the Governor
I have it on good authority that the Wisconsin State Senate has sent the concealed carry permit bill to the governor's desk. The governor has said in the past that he would veto it. Here's the contact information I can find for him:Wisconsin Governor-Jim Doyle (Democrat)
Okay, Cheeseheads, make his phone too hot to touch!
Address: Office of the Governor
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
Phone Number: 608-266-1212
Fax Number: 608-267-8983
Web Site: http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us
What Was I Thinking?
I've been going through my closets of junk, selling off odd optical stuff, strange gun parts, etc.--and I find myself staring at a mountain of ammunition. What was I thinking? You might think, from looking at the quantities of magazines, ammunition, that I was expecting an assault by the Third Army (or even larger, all the women with whom Bill Clinton has ever had sex, voluntarily or otherwise).
I can honestly say that I do not expect to ever need to buy .223, .308, 9mm, .380 ACP, or .45 ACP again. Nor will my children, after I pass on. Or their grandchildren. Perhaps when my descendants are settling Tau Ceti 4, it will be time for them to shop for ammunition.
Note New Email Addresses
You'll notice that I have changed the email address that appears here. Why? Because the volume of email that I get related to the blog has grown quite substantially--and I think my spamkiller Bayes pattern matcher will benefit from having different criteria on different email accounts.
If you are contacting me because of this blog, either to comment on something that I have blogged, or to give me a lead of some sort, please use the blogmail account. Family and close friends, of course, will still be contacting me at my other account--but if you don't know the name of my children, and how old they are, you really aren't family or close friends.
I can't stop you from using the other account, but I am going to get very cross with you! You think that I can't reach right through that stream of electrons and grab you by the throat! But how do you know for sure?
More Evidence of the Oppressive Nature of the Heterosexist Class
It almost reads like satire: A New York landlord’s decision not to allow transgendered visitors to use whichever bathroom they choose in his building is equivalent to forcing African-Americans to use separate bathroom before the 1960s, according to 365gay.com.
The ACLU must have run out of real injustices to worry about.
James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU's AIDS Project, says bathrooms are the new “battlegrounds” in the fight for civil rights.
"The landlord's decision to exclude transgender people from the bathrooms and common areas was just as wrong today as it was 50 years ago when business owners in the South tried to force African Americans to use separate bathrooms."
The Civilian Gun Defense Blog
It's here. I've gone back through my blog, and copied old examples over--and within two minutes of creating the new blog, I had a new entry to add, from a San Antonio newspaper.
I will mention here when I add a new entry to the new blog, but from now on, if someone tells you that civilians seldom use guns for self-defense--just tell them where to go!
UPDATE: It turns out that someone else is already doing something very much like this, here. Maybe there's no point in me duplicating their efforts.
The 1000 Pound Scale
From an AP news story: Scales that go to 1,000 pounds, steering wheels for drivers who can't fit behind standard wheels, a device to help people who can't bend over to put on their socks, and super-size towels.
Look, I'm carrying an extra 30 pounds, and not surprisingly, I sympathize with those who are struggling with weight problems. The Callista Flockhart level of thinness is a dangerous example to teenaged girls, who are struggling with body image problems. But a scale that goes to 1000 pounds? That's not just a tall person, or a very muscular person. That's a very, very serious health problem.
Increasingly, companies are making bigger products for America's bigger people, customizing everything from caskets to seat belts. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 percent of Americans are considered obese.
While some researchers say the products can help overcome the stigma of being overweight, others suggest they might encourage obesity by making extra-large the norm.
The article goes on to say: The proliferation of products for big people may help reduce shame about being obese, long stigmatized as indicating bad character, laziness and weakness, according to Peter Stearns, author of "Fat History: Bodies and Beauty in the Modern West."
I think Caplan has it right. If we change the world to pretend that obesity isn't a problem, it takes away encouragement for those who are struggling with weight problems to keep working at it.
Stearns, former dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, said he believes the stigma developed as society developed a sense of guilt for consuming more and more.
While it's healthy to stop equating fat with moral failure, being fat is still unhealthy, researchers say.
"On one hand, we have to make the world safe for a fatter population," Caplan said. "But the more we adjust our world to accept our weight, the harder it is to motivate us to do the healthier thing and lose the weight."
I'm So Glad That I Don't Live in Britain
Some of what I say is apparently a criminal offense in Britain now: A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.
Yes, really. The Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester, infuriated homosexuals both in and out of the Church of England when he said last week that they could and should seek medical help to "reorientate" themselves.
And he's right about this. Robert L. Spitzer, the psychiatrist who led the effort to remove homosexuality from DSM-III--the "Bible" of psychiatric--has studied the matter in the last few years, and concluded that homosexuals, at least some homosexuals, can change not just their behavior, but their sexual and affectional orientation. To say this is now a criminal offense in Britain? It does show the totalitarian nature of the homosexual movement rather well, doesn't it?
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (the LGCM) accused him of putting forward an "offensive" and "scandalous" argument from a bygone age.
Cheshire Police have said that they are to investigate his comments, made in the local paper, the Chester Chronicle, after receiving a complaint that his views may incite people to turn against homosexuals.
...
The bishop, who has in the past attacked the immorality of Britain and the ordination of homosexual bishops, spoke out after spending 18 months helping to write the Church of England report Some Issues in Human Sexuality - A Guide to Debate.
He told the newspaper that his research had led him to believe that homosexuals should seek medical help.
He said: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health."
Thanks to David Bernstein over at Volokh Conspiracy for the link.
Remarkably Prescient Dissent
Justice Hugo Black's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was remarkably prescient about the dangers of finding rights in "natural law" rather than in the Constitution. Note also his points about how liberals adopted the theory of Lochner when convenient: I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.
I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old-fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an "arbitrary and capricious" or "shocking to the conscience" formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e. g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 . That formula, based on subjective considerations of "natural justice," is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 ; Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236 , and many other opinions. 17 See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (Holmes, J., dissenting).
Boise Rain & Clouds This Weekend
For those of you in the Boise area: sorry about causing that. I received a new laser collimator for my telescope on Saturday, with predictable effects on the weather.
My, How High-Capacity Magazine Prices Have Risen! Let Me Take Advantage Of You!
The 1994 federal assault weapons ban (which wasn't a ban on possession or sale, but only on new manufacture) also banned manufacture of magazines exceeding ten rounds. I was a dealer at the time, and bought quite a few spares--quite a few more than I really needed. My goal was to both make sure that there were plenty of them available, and perhaps to make some money if prices rose.
Prices at first didn't go up at all. Between the time that Congress passed this "urgently needed" bill and the time that the Philanderer-in-Chief Bill Clinton signed it, eleven days elapsed--and by some accounts, more than a million high capacity magazines were made.
Prices have certainly risen a bit since then! I was going through my gun safe, looking for a 20 round SKS fixed magazine, and I was astonished at how many high capacity magazines are sitting in that safe. I have perhaps ten Butler Creek "Hot Lips" 25-round magazines for the Ruger 10/22, smoke color, still in the original packaging and unfired. Unlike some other makers of 10/22 extended magazines, these work very, very reliably. I've never had a feed failure.
I was astonished to find that many vendors are offering them for sale at $64.95 each, or $59.95 each, and even the absurd $120 eack. I was even more surprised that vendors such Cheaper Than Dirt no longer seem to carry these.
I would be happy to get $50 each plus shipping. Obviously, I can't ship them to California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey, which have bans on import or possession.
I also have gobs of 20 round M1A/M14 steel magazines, new, unfired, purported to be US manufacture. I have used a couple of this batch to verify functionality, and they work completely reliably in my Springfield Armory M1A. I see that Cheaper Than Dirt is offering them for $49.95 "used, near-new condition." Mine are new, and in new condition, although there's no fancy packaging. I have about ten new ones that I could let go at $70 each.
More Civilian Defensive Gun Uses
I'm going to have to create a separate blog just for civilian defensive gun uses in the press--they are so common! This is apparently from Licking County, Ohio, sometime in early November:James R. Dennis Jr., also known as James L. Dennis, 33, of 1680 Lakeview Drive, Apt. F, was charged with one count of burglary, a fourth-degree felony.
This one from Greensboro, North Carolina, at first sounds a little uncertain--until you get a little deeper into the article:
In the course of responding to a burglary in progress on Saturday, Newark police found Dennis Jr. at a residence in the 100 block of West Greer Drive, according to court records. The homeowner had Dennis Jr. pinned to the floor and was holding a gun on him, records stated. Dennis Jr. allegedly gained entry through the residence through an unlocked breezeway, records stated. GREENSBORO -- Thomas Earl Alston told police he was watching television with his girlfriend Thursday night when there was a knock on the door.
Here's a shooting that happened almost a year ago in Tift County, Georgia, and was prosecuted as four felony assault charges--but the jury just ruled that it was self-defense.
The man at the door -- 28-year-old Chester Kendale Lane -- asked Alston, 32, for a ride, then pulled a handgun, Alston told Greensboro police. The pair, who apparently didn't know each other, wound up exchanging gunfire about 9:15 p.m. outside Alston's apartment at 1008-E Rucker St., Greensboro police Sgt. Jane Allen said.
Neighbors in Brevard Park heard eight to 10 gunshots. Lane dropped to the sidewalk, with two gunshot wounds, one to the chest and another in the right thigh, said Dr. Thomas Owens of the state medical examiner's office. Lane, who has Randolph County ties but whose address is unknown, died minutes later at Moses Cone Hospital.
The investigation continues and no charges have been filed while police investigate Alston's claims of self-defense. Allen said once the investigation is completed -- she's not sure how long that will take -- the case will be presented to the district attorney, who will decide if charges should be filed.
...
Police are checking to see if Lane was involved in a breaking and entering of a nearby house minutes before the fatal shooting. Officers had been called to the Brevard Park neighborhood and heard gunfire when they were taking a report of a man who broke into a house at 3939-A McIntosh St. and shot at two female residents as they ran off to call police.When the gunfire stopped, Matthew Bowen, Matt Tays, Jerry Young and Phuong Luong were shot, but all still alive.
Sanderson was, however, convicted of being a minor in possession of a handgun.)
Emergency workers race to the scene, not sure exactly what happened. Emergency worker: "At least three people shot. They said he just pulled out a gun and started shooting out there."
...
Then comes a call from Bobby's mother Patricia Sanderson. The 17-year- old boy with the gun went straight home. And from the beginning, to his mother, this was clearly self defense. "The boys tried jumping on my son. He said 'Mamma, five to eight guys just jumped on me.' His face was bloody and he was in shock."
But self defense is not the way the District Attorney viewed the case. Bobby Sanderson was jailed and charged with four felony assaults. Sanderson never denied the shootings, but claimed self defense.
And that's the matter a Tift County Jury was forced to decide in a criminal trial. Was it Assault or Self-Defense? The jury heard both sides of the story.
...
The shooting victims in this case say Sanderson had time to escape, but the jury agreed with Sanderson. After 90 minutes of deliberations they said it was not assault. It was self defense.
Why did the jury aquitt Sanderson on all felony counts? One juror, who wanted to remain anonymous, said it was a unanimous vote.
They felt Sanderson had the right to protect himself, he was outnumbered in the fight.
Here's a repeat self-defender from Tampa, Florida:Late Thursday night, the 63-year-old victim of an attempted carjacking pulled a .357-caliber Magnum on his assailant and fired, critically wounding him, officials said.
Here's a case from Beaumont, Texas, at the end of October:
The victim of the attempted carjacking, Benjamin Lee Tate, is no stranger to intruders at Engine Rebuild Specialists, 6214 E. Columbus Drive, his east Tampa business. Tate's forceful retaliation Thursday was his third in three years, Tampa police Capt. Bob Guidara said.
Tate shot two burglars - one in 2000 and another in February, Guidara said. Both suspects survived. No charges have been filed against Tate, whose business is in a high- crime area in east Tampa, Guidara said.
``He definitely hasn't had much luck, being targeted as many times as he has,'' Guidara said.
``I'm not looking for trouble,'' Tate said.
``I'm just here doing my job.''
Police said Tate was changing oil in a car at the shop about 11:30 p.m. Thursday when a man approached.
With his hand behind him as though he had a gun, the man said he would shoot Tate if he didn't hand over car keys and cash, police said. Tate shot him instead.
Michael E. Garner, a 31- year-old roofer who has a prison record for theft and drug convictions, was taken to Tampa General Hospital, police said. Thursday night around 11:30 p.m., officers were called to a home in the 4000 block of Woodlawn in reference to a home invasion robbery. The two residents of the home were not injured. The female inside the home told police she heard a knock at the back door. After several attempts to see and hear who was outside, the female cracked the door open. The door was forced open by two black male suspects who were armed with handguns. The female was forced to the floor by one of the men. He placed the gun to her head and demanded her purse. She was able to crawl down the hallway and yell for her husband. Her husband opened the bedroom door, and saw what was going on. He retrieved a 12 gauge shotgun and exited the bedroom. When the suspects saw the shotgun THEY RAN OUT THE BACK DOOR. After the husband locked the door, he thought that he saw someone back at the door through the window. Thinking that the attackers had returned, he fired one round at the window. No one was injured. The suspects were able to get away.
Just keep telling yourself: civilians very seldom use guns for self-defense!
Thanks to Dan Gifford for the links.
