The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 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). 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. |
Saturday, February 24, 2007
A Very Busy Day... Gathering all the receipts together, and trying to do the taxes for my two businesses. The paperwork required for ScopeRoller almost makes me wonder if I should keep doing it. Why Am I Not Surprised By This? I've mentioned my disgust at the ACLU's defense of virtual child pornography--and my disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court went ahead and struck down the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 a few years ago. I've long been unsure whether the ACLU's ahistorical interpretation of the First Amendment was an irrational zealotry for a principle for something a bit darker. This article, however, gives me confidence that for at least some members of the ACLU, it is the latter: Feb. 23, 2007— Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.I won't quote the details of the materials that he downloaded--but let's just say that if you have the stomach to read it, there's no question about what he was buying. Let me also make the point that this wasn't just material found on his computer. There's a lot of technically interesting viruses out there that can get into your computer, and turn it into a porn server--without your knowledge. It is also possible for emails sent to you to contain pornography and you might never see it--for example, if your spam blocker puts it in the spam folder, and you don't even realize this stuff is there. But using his credit card to purchase access--well, that reduces (although does not eliminate) the question of his being an inadvertent participant. Oh yes, there's a great section of the article discussing Rust-Tierney's past history of defending unlimited Internet access: In the past, Rust-Tierney had argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia, writing, "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."Oh, this must make parents of the kids on these teams happy: Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents. Friday, February 23, 2007
"That's So Gay" Over at Classical Values, I found this link to an article about events in Sonoma County, where I used to live. Not surprisingly, since this is a very liberal place (awash in more multimillionaires than you can shake a stick at, with, unsurprisingly, enormous drug problems among the youth), free speech isn't allowed: (CBS 5) SANTA ROSA The school district's battle against a phrase many teenagers use without giving much thought -- "that's so gay" -- has sparked a legal fight.Now, I happen to think that the ACLU has gone way off the deep end with their insane notions of what freedom of speech protects. I also think that if the ACLU is going to insist on an extraordinary (and ahistorical) understanding of the First Amendment's protections, they need to be consistent about it. Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) is the landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War was Constitutionally protected--and the school's concern about possible disruption to classes was a poor reason to ban the wearing of the armband. I think the school district was being a bit heavy-handed on this, but identifying a bright line that separates a student standing up in class and telling the teacher, "This class is stupid, you're stupid, and I don't want to listen to you" and wearing black armbands is fraught with opportunities for the courts to second-guess school administrators. Still, if the First Amendment's "freedom of speech" is going to include all sorts of "expressive conduct," then it needs to include it not just for the left, but for the right as well. Of course, liberals, like Judge Reinhardt (married to ACLU of Southern California executive director Ramona Ripston) have held that freedom of speech doesn't include T-shirts that make homosexuals feel bad about themselves. But that's liberalism for you: a completely bankrupt hypocritical excuse for taking power. I also sympathize a bit with the school district in this current case. The first time that I heard my daughter (then in eighth grade, I think) use the expression, "That's so gay" (just a few miles from Santa Rosa), I expressed my concern that this was an inappropriate expression to use. It was insulting to homosexuals. Now, regular readers know that I do not approve of homosexuality, but criticism of it should be honest and directed at the action, not at the homosexual. Why offend with style when you can offend with substance? Of course, I found myself wondering at the time if the continual advocacy by school administrators and teachers in favor of homosexuality might have played some part in causing the transformation of, "That's so lame" (in my day, when pterodactyls flew over our playground) to "That's so gay" in the 1990s. UPDATE: A bit more detail here. Labels: freedom of speech, homosexuality, political correctness Another State Climatologist Is Politically Incorrect First it was the Oregon state climatologist who was in trouble for not agreeing that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was a problem. Now, it's the Delaware state climatologist: WILMINGTON, Del. — Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware's state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's ties to the administration.The article mentions the Oregon state climatologist, but also the Virginia state climatologist has run into similar problems. It makes you wonder if the scientific consensus that the AGW crowd talks about so loudly doesn't exist at all. Labels: global warming Thursday, February 22, 2007
A New Verb: To Zumbo Oneself I kinda feel sorry for this hunting writer named Zumbo. He blogged about how no one needs assault weapons, and how hunters should shun such guns. In what has to be a new record, every company with which he was associated severed their ties with him in hours. Let me be very clear about this: the Second Amendment didn't guarantee a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of hunting. It was widely assumed, and there would have been some serious head scratching by the Framers if you had argued that there wasn't a right to hunt (suitable to appropriate game regulations) on public lands. The Second Amendment didn't guarantee a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense--although that was also assumed. The Second Amendment guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of revolution. What sort of guns does the Second Amendment protect? Into the 1980s, Handgun Control used to cite decisions such as Aymette v. State (Tenn. 1840) which explained that the purpose of the right was: being armed, they may as a body rise up to defend their just rights, and compel their rulers to respect the laws.There's nothing wrong with your Remington 870 for hunting ducks. There's nothing wrong with your .30-30 for deer hunting. They can be used (with some limitations) for the Constitutional purpose of making the government remember for whom it works. But the guns that the Second Amendment primarily protects are those best suited to overthrowing an oppressive government. And yes, that's your AR-15, AK-47, M1A, and even nasty little assault handguns that I don't particularly like, such as the TEC-9 or MAC-10. Labels: gun rights Gun Week Review of Armed America I hope that they don't get upset with me for reproducing it here. I would have linked to it, but didn't find it online. Labels: my books This Is Funny--But It Could Have Turned Out Tragic Back when my wife and I took concealed weapons class at the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department training facility, our instructor showed us a video that illustrated the problems of what happens when you arrive in the middle of a dispute, where determining exactly what is happening is unsure. Sometimes who seems to be the bad guy is actually the victim. It is therefore terribly important that you not drawing your weapon prematurely, nor fire until you have a situation where: 1. The threat of death or great bodily injury is imminent. 2. The aggressor is unambiguous. 3. You have no other alternative. This case from Wisconsin is one of those situations where the guy with the sword probably legitimately thought he was coming to a victim's aid: Van Iveren is in some serious trouble with the authorities over this, with: misdemeanor charges of criminal trespassing while using a dangerous weapon, criminal damage to property while using a dangerous weapon and disorderly conduct while using a dangerous weapon.Your lessons from this? 1. If you must watch this sort of material, don't watch stuff where the audio track can be mistaken for a rape. 2. If you must watch it, turn the volume down. 3. In a case like this, call the police. 4. If you really must go next door with a sword, explain the situation to the person answering the door. I suspect that the neighbor with bad taste would have gladly said, "Take a look at what's on the TV." Oh Dear, a Gun Crime Crisis Is Requiring Government Action But oddly enough, this government has already banned semiauto shotguns and rifles, all handguns, and restrictively licensed all other rifles and shotguns. What's left? Tony Blair is due to host a gun crime summit at Downing Street, following a recent spate of fatal shootings.Oh, yes, and since this is a Labour Party government--believers in civil liberties, what else can they do? And the prime minister has told the BBC he is considering criminalising gang membership.Hey, maybe they could give serious violent criminals (like murderer) life sentences--and make them real life sentences. From the sidebar in the article:
Labels: gun rights Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Is Anyone Really So Stupid? This report from the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles shows what happened when they put hidden cameras in cars, then paid Jiffy Lube shops around Los Angeles to change fuel filters, flush transmission fluid--and they didn't do it in 5 out of 9 stores. Now, Jiffy Lube isn't the cheapest place to get this stuff done. You pay a premium for the convenience of not waiting around for your car. And still this isn't enough money? Labels: consumer fraud Early History of Maryland's Laws Concerning Carrying of Guns This might not be of interest to most of you--but here's a skeleton of data upon which Maryland gun rights activists might be able to add some research. I spent some time trying to figure out the early history of Maryland's gun carrying laws--and it seems a bit more complex than most. I'm providing the information below in case someone has the time and energy to read through newspapers of the period for some evidence of legislative intent. Unfortunately, I don't have access to 19th century Maryland newspapers out here. If you have the energy and interest to pursue such research, it would be useful to read some of the black newspapers of the immediate post-war period; they may have some things to say that the mainstream newspapers would have found inconvenient. The earliest Maryland gun carrying restriction (as opposed to requirement to carry guns) seems to be the 1715 statute at Archives of Maryland, 75:268: The language can be read as applying to free blacks, but I am pretty sure that "Negro or other Slave" means "black or Indian slave." (A big fraction of slaves at the time were Indians captured as POWs.) The next law seems to be the 1809 ch. 138 which applies statewide to all non-peace officers, and prohibits any carry “with intent feloniously to assault any person.” This is part of a statute that also prohibits carrying various burglary tools with intent to commit burglary, and is not a ban on carry. You can find this at Archives of Maryland, 570:94. There's an 1831 statute, ch. 323 sec. 6, which is a statewide law that requires free blacks to obtain a license from a local court for possession or carry of "a firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." See Archives of Maryland, 213:448. This is part of a collection of statutes adopted in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion in Virginia that threw the entire South into a tizzy (understandably enough), and that starts many of the Southern states on prohibiting teaching blacks to read, and increasingly strict weapons regulations. Maryland's licensing of free blacks possessing or carrying weapons isn't surprising; North Carolina did so during this period as well, and actually issued thousands of permits over a period of many years. I'm not finding other laws in Maryland in this period, but there does seem to be some discussion of a need for some regulation. At the height of the 1837 "Bowie knife panic" in the Old Southwest, people are talking up the subject in Baltimore. An excerpt from my book Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (that's just a teaser to get you to buy the book!) (Praeger, 1999): The Tuscumbia North Alabamian reprinted a Baltimore grand jury report that asserted, “The wearing of deadly weapons . . . is an intolerable nuisance, unnecessary in the present state of any civilized community, dangerous in its tendencies, pernicious in its consequences, and destructive alike of good morals and the public peace.” The grand jury then pointed to the example of Governor Tacon in Cuba, who ordered suppression of gambling, then of carrying concealed weapons:In 1860, the 1831 law licensing carry by free blacks is still on the books, along with a prohibition on dog ownership (also pretty common in the South after Turner's Rebellion--dogs are weapons). I found this in a summary of laws then on the books at Archives of Maryland, 145:464, and if there were any amendments to the 1831 statute, they aren't obvious to me.Gov. Tacon does not spend much time in talking or passing resolutions—-but like Bonaparte, he issues his orders, and the thing is done. . . . Persons are now as safe in Havana at all times of night as they are in New York. Why cannot our magistrates administer our good wholesome laws with some of Gov. Tacon’s decisions. [“Wearing deadly Weapons,” (Tuscumbia) North Alabamian, June 23, 1837, 2.] After the Civil War--and more importantly, after Maryland abolished slavery at the 1864 Constitutional Convention--it would appear that the 1831 race-based law silently vanishes. Instead, we get a series of rather odd statutes--odd in what is prohibited, and where they apply. Perhaps because the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed to deal with the disarming of free blacks? In 1866, ch. 375, there is a statewide law that applies to all non-peace officers that bans (does not license) concealed carry of "any pistol, dirk-knife, bowie-knife, slung-shot, billy, sand-club, metal knuckles, razor, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind whatsoever, (penknives excepted,)" and also criminalizes "every person who shall carry or wear any such weapon openly, with the intent or purpose of injuring any person...." The fine is up to $500 (equivalent to perhaps 20 times that today) and six months in jail. See Archives of Maryland, 389:468-9. Now we take a rather odd little twist. In 1870, ch. 473, the legislature passes a law that applies only to Baltimore, and makes it a criminal offense for non-peace officers to be carrying "pistol, dirk knife, bowie knife, slingshot, billy, brass, iron or any other metal knuckles, razor, or any other deadly weapon whatsoever" if you are arrested and charged with a crime. It isn't unlawful to be armed, unless you are arrested and charged with some other crime. However, the fine is only $3 to $10--with no jail time. See Archives of Maryland, 188:3430-1. Yet the 1866 ch. 375 statute would seem to be a far more serious punishment for concealed carry, and as a punishment for open carry, it requires the police to arrest you for some other crime. Is it possible that the courts struck down the 1866 statute for some reason? I can't find any evidence that the legislature repealed it. It is conceivable (although I have no evidence for it) that the courts might have struck it down for violating one of several Congressional statutes of the period designed to protect freedmen from being disarmed by the Klan. In 1872, ch. 42, the legislature passes a ban on concealed carry by non-peace officers of the same weapons list that appears in the 1866 and 1870 statutes, but this applies only in Annapolis, and again, the penalty is only $3 to $10. See Archives of Maryland, 190:2635-6. Because this applies only to concealed carry, it suggests that either the 1866 statewide statute had been repealed or struck down. In 1874, ch. 178, the legislature again passes a Baltimore specific measure. This is a very minor revision of the 1870 ch. 473 statute, requiring "it shall be the duty of all officers, to take all persons arrested in the day time under this act, immediately before the justice of the peace, nearest the place of arrest, for examination, except for drunk and disorderly conduct or theft, and any officer failing so to do shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than five nor more than ten dollars." See Archives of Maryland, 211:3102-3. Very interesting: it would appear that Baltimore police were not consistently enforcing this law. Why? As my paper "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" has pointed out, many of the gun control laws passed in the South after the Fourteenth Amendment were facially race-neutral, but in practice, were disproportionately enforced against blacks (until the 1960s). In 1884, the legislature revised the 1874 ch. 178 statute to clarify the offenses that make it unlawful to be carrying a deadly weapon--but now, only concealed carry when arrested and charged is made unlawful. They also increase the fine to cover the range $5 to $25. See Archives of Maryland, 390:522-3. In 1904, ch. 114 is a statewide law that prohibits non-peace officers from carrying concealed or "openly with the intent or purpose of injuring any person in any unlawful manner, and not for any proper purpose of self-protection...." There is an exemption for "carrying such weapon as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" and for railroad police. See Archives of Maryland, 209:4025-6. In 1914, ch. 146 revises this, largely, it seems, to clarify that a judge as the full authority to decide whether the defendant's claim that he was carrying as a "reasonable precaution against apprehended danger" was valid or not. See Archives of Maryland, 533:190-2. In 1922, ch. 96 sec. 49 makes it unlawful to carry concealed in Cumberland. Again, I'm not quite sure why, since the penalty for violating this statute (a $25 to $50 fine, and confiscation of the weapon) is trivial compared to the penalty available under the 1914 ch. 146 statute. See Archives of Maryland, 377:292. Labels: gun history, gun rights, history Tuesday, February 20, 2007
How You Know That The Crime Problem In Your County Isn't Severe When the county-wide newspaper carries this news story as the second largest front page, above the fold headline: Men Charged with Area Burglaries Appear in Court Second Amendment As An Individual Right In A Current Court of Appeal Decision PubCrawler points out that today's DC Court of Appeals decision upholding Congressional action that denied habeas corpus appeal rights to the federal courts for Guantanamo Bay detainees also pointed to existing decisions concerning what rights, if any, those outside the United States enjoy--and seems to be saying that indeed, the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a right of the states to maintain militias: The detainees encounter another difficulty with their Suspension Clause claim. Precedent in this court and the Supreme Court holds that the Constitution does not confer rights on aliens without property or presence within the United States. As we explained in Al Odah, 321 F.3d at 1140-41, the controlling case is Johnson v. Eisentrager. There twenty-one German nationals confined in custody of the U.S. Army in Germany filed habeas corpus petitions. Although the German prisoners alleged they were civilian agents of the German government, a military commission convicted them of war crimes arising from military activity against the United States in China after Germany’s surrender. They claimed their convictions and imprisonment violated various constitutional provisions and the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme CourtThe decision also cites U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), which also addresses this question, and again shows that the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Labels: gun history, gun rights Watch Out For Flying Pigs DC City Councilmember Marion Barry is admitting that the current gun control law doesn't work. This article from the DC Examiner reports: WASHINGTON - District residents have been the guinea pigs in a failed 30-year-old experiment in social engineering. Three decades of strict gun control laws have not made the capital city’s streets safer. On the contrary, since 1976, D.C.’s murder rate has increased 32 percent, and violent crimes committed during the first few weeks of 2007 by gun-wielding thugs are up a staggering 50 percent over the same period last year.Yes, we should be suspicious of almost anything that comes out of DC's bad excuse for city government, but seeing them admit that the current system isn't working--only 25 years after it became obvious--well, that's progress. Labels: gun rights Monday, February 19, 2007
Obnoxious Mudflaps You know the mudflaps I'm talking about--with the silhouette of a most improbably shaped woman on them? I have to put those very high on the "You know that you are a crude and boorish person" indicators list. I suppose that this news story wouldn't bother me so much if we aren't just awash in far more serious signs of vulgarity, everywhere around us: PHOENIX -- It's still going to be legal in Arizona for trucks to have splash guards with racist terms and silhouettes of naked women.That we live in a very depraved culture? Seriously, focusing on mudflaps for legal action makes about as much sense as vigorously enforcing littering laws in South Central Los Angeles. Aren't there some higher priorities to worry about? By the way, Instapundit points to the obscene mudflaps without mentioning that the sponsor of the bill was aiming at derogatory racial mudflaps. Yes, I am not happy about those, either, and I don't buy the argument that anything that you can put on a mudflap is protected by the First Amendment. But going after obscene mudflaps--and not the larger problem of vulgarity and obscenity all around us--shows a real serious tunnel vision problem. Labels: freedom of speech, political correctness |
