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: freedom of speech Labels: crime, deinstitutionalization, media manipulation Labels: Idaho politics “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday. Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times. ... Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.” Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week to bolster that conclusion. Labels: terrorism Labels: gun rights The U.S. Homeland Security chief has clarified earlier remarks that suggested the 9-11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made the comments during a media interview earlier this week, much to the chagrin of Canadians on both sides of the border. In a release Tuesday night following the interview, she called Canada a "close ally and an important partner" and said she was simply misunderstood. "I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States," she said in the statement. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates Labels: gun self-defense First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” ... Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence. Labels: gun rights Labels: cars Labels: gun self-defense Labels: gun rights Labels: terrorism Labels: telescopes
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.
First Amendment Being Ignored In Idaho
I mentioned last year the weird case of Chris Pentico, who was charged with trespassing at the state capitol. I tried to get to his trial on these charges earlier in the week, but an email telling about the trial "tomorrow" turned out to be a day late. I'm still gathering data about this, but in brief, Chris (who is the Republican Party chair for the 22nd district, and a really nice person), brought some evidence of at least questionable legal practices involving Boise State University to the attention of the governor, in the form of a written complaint. (It may be worse than just questionable, perhaps rising to the level of illegal, but I'm still waiting on some documents before I commit myself.)
After Chris left the building where the governor's office is located (while the capitol building is renovated), an Idaho State Police officer told him that he was making some legislators "uncomfortable" and he was not to return to the state office buildings. There was no allegation that he was a threat, or had broken any laws. He just made some legislators "uncomfortable."
Chris contacted his representative, Pete Nielsen, who made some inquiries, and couldn't find any evidence that Chris had been banned from the capitol. So Chris returned with some more papers related to his concerns, and dropped them off. A block or two from the state office buildings, he was arrested and handcuffed for violating Idaho Code 18-7011. (You can see the ticket here.)
So what does that section prohibit?18-7011. CRIMINAL TRESPASS -- DEFINITION AND PUNISHMENT. (1) Any person who, without consent of the owner or person in charge of any lands which are inclosed by fences of any description sufficient to show the boundaries of the land inclosed, shall go upon such lands and shall leave open any gates on or about said premises, or who shall tear down or lay down any fencing, or who shall willfully remove, mutilate, damage or destroy any "No Trespassing" signs or markers, or who shall go through cultivated crops that have not been harvested, or who shall damage any property thereon, or who without permission of the owner or the owner's agent enters the real property of another person where such real property is posted with "No Trespassing" signs or other notices of like meaning spaced at intervals of not less than one (1) notice per six hundred sixty (660) feet along such real property, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six (6) months or by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both such fine and imprisonment. Where the geographical configuration of the real property is such that entry can reasonably be made only at certain points of access, such property is posted sufficiently for all purposes of this section if said signs or notices are posted at such points of access.
There are no "No Trespassing" signs at the state office building. And indeed, it was so obviously wrong, that I understand that they had to refile the case against Chris three times, trying to find a section that would fit. Chris was convicted this week under Idaho Code 18-7008:18-7008. TRESPASS -- ACTS CONSTITUTING.
Chris' attorney attempted to argue before Judge Swain that there were First Amendment problems with this charge. (I can see both free speech and right to petition for redress of grievances issues.)
A. Every person who willfully commits any trespass, by either:...
8. Every person, except under landlord-tenant relationship, who, being first notified in writing, or verbally by the owner or authorized agent of the owner of real property, to immediately depart from the same and who refuses to so depart, or who, without permission or invitation, returns and enters said property within a year, after being so notified; ...
Is guilty of a misdemeanor.
I do not dispute that there might be circumstances under which a person could be ordered to not return to a government office--perhaps if there were threats of violence, or actions that constituted harassment. However, prohibiting a person from entering a state office building to complain about improper or illegal behavior by the government requires something more than legislators feeling "uncomfortable." For many years, there was a kook wandering around inside the California capitol holding signs with rather rude language, and the state lacked authority to remove him. A capitol tour guide (who sounded so much like Father Guido Sarducci that I had to resist laughing the whole time) made a point to warn about this, before starting our tour.
This seems at least a clear constitutional question that a judge should not arbitrarily refuse to allow a lawyer to raise: can a peaceable citizen be prohibited from entering a state office building to file a complaint? And what sort of conduct would justify such a prohibition? Chris tells me that Judge Swain would not allow Chris' attorney to even raise this clear First Amendment question.
Nor would Judge Swain allow Chris' attorney to call Rep. Pete Nielsen to testify that Nielsen had informed Chris that he could not find any evidence that Chris was prohibited from entering the state office building. This, at least, would have established that Chris had a good faith basis for believing that he was not prohibited from entering.
Nor would Judge Swain require the prosecution to say who, exactly, prohibited Chris from entering a state office building. The building didn't make this decision; someone who works for the state made this decision--and gets to hide behind the anonymity of "the people."
Now, you may be wondering: Where's the ACLU? Chris contacted the ACLU last year when this first started. You know, First Amendment question: freedom of speech; redress of grievances. But the Idaho chapter wasn't interested in it. (I guess that Chris should have been trying to perform an abortion in the governor's outer office, or demanding a right to marry another man.)
Anyway, it's an interesting problem. I wish that I had been present for the trial. Chris, who is a college student, is really not a position to pay an attorney to appeal this, and the ACLU, at least in Idaho, doesn't do free speech civil rights questions anymore. (At least, they don't do cases like this.) The sentencing date is currently scheduled for May 11, and Chris could get as much as $1000 fine and six months in jail for exercising the right to petition for redress of grievances.
At the Pachyderm Club meeting last night, this miscarriage of justice was brought to the attention of three members of the legislature, who promised to look into this. One member of the lower house and I spoke for a few minutes about this, and about whether Judge Swain's actions might rise to the level of an impeachable offense--but such actions are so rare here that he didn't know if the legislature had the authority to do that. Idaho Const., Art. V, sec. 3, seems to do so.
Interesting Evening Last Night
I attended a meeting of the Treasure Valley Pachyderms, a conservative Republican organization. (And for you Idaho Democrats who think all Republicans are conservative--no, there's a lot of them like State Senator Corder, who might as well be Democrats.)
Anyway, we had three members of the lower house of the state legislature with us last night. Rep. Joe Palmer, who was just elected from district 20, told us about the events that caused him to run for office, and win in what he described as a "landslide" victory, with a 45 vote margin. Rep. Palmer is either a very decent and humble person who got fed up with insane government control (in this case, involving the EPA and some World War II barracks that he demolished for a building project), or does one of the better jobs of simulating a decent and humble person.
I've Joined The Pajamas Media Stable of Writers!
Here's a piece that they just published by me about mass murder, mass media, and the failure of deinstitutionalization. And they pay me, too!
Got Some Broken, Unrepairable Guns?
Here's your chance! Crime, Guns, and Videotape is reporting that there's a chance to turn those into grocery gift cards:Los Angeles and the already financially distressed TV stations, CBS 2/ KCAL 9 have teamed up to buy handguns for $100.00 and so called assault weapons for $200.00. Instead of cash they will be handing out Ralph’s grocery store gift certificates or Visa gift cards. I see no difficulty with their form of payment. As usual the nitwits have promised that no questions will be asked.
I don't know where he got that picture he has, but I suspect that the idiots that run these "gun buy-back" programs are probably stupid enough to take junk like this. I can remember some years ago when I was a gun dealer, and I could buy some of the really crummy little handguns for $39 each (in quantity)--when handgun buy-backs were often paying $100 each. I have read of more than a few gun owners who took advantage of such stupidity to get better guns. (Unfortunately, most of the buy-back programs now are smart enough to limit you to two guns that they will buy.)
Now is the time to gather your non-collectable, cheap, rusty junk and use the financial reward to offset the cost of better guns and ammunition.
If you have a nice gun and know for sure it’s not stolen any gun dealer in the country will pay you cash so why bring anything valuable or nice to the dopes running the buy-back program.
If the taxpayers of Los Angeles want the politicians to pay premium prices for rusty scrap they deserve that city’s bankruptcy.
I'm A Bit Stumped By This
The Idaho legislature recently passed a bill that, at least in Idaho, would be right up there Mom and apple pie:Adds to and amends existing law relating to sport shooting activities to provide for a limitation of liability on certain sport shooting activities and to provide exceptions; and to provide an exception to governmental liability relating to certain sport shooting ranges.
Essentially, it protects the operator of a shooting range from being sued except if the operator:(i) Commits an act or omission that constitutes gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard for the safety of the participant and that act or omission caused the injury? or
The reason should be obvious: shooting is intrinsically somewhat hazardous. You accept certain risks if you are firing a deadly weapon, or going somewhere that deadly weapons are being fired. (Sort of like skydiving.) The net effect is that if the operator of a shooting range is making a reasonable effort to keep it safe, you can't sue him. It also seems to protect the operator if he has taken reasonable efforts, and another customer does something stupid, irrational, or criminal, that causes injury to another customer.
(ii) Intentionally injures the participant.
I believe that if the operator saw customer X do something obviously dangerous (like handling a gun on the firing line while customers were downrange), and didn't tell customer X to knock it off, and this lead to customer Y being injured, this would qualify as "gross negligence" or "willlful and wanton disregard."
Such a bill prevents ambulance chasing antigun lawyers from using a a trivial error by an operator, or the actions of another customer, from being used to bankrupt a shooting range. You can see why those who look out for ambulance chasers and antigun activists would oppose such a bill.
Well, the bill passed the legislature, but State Senator Tim Corder (who represents me up there), was one of only five state senators to vote against it! The other four who voted against it? All Democrats? All representing Boise. (The ambulance chaser, antigun part of Idaho.)
I know that this vote won't go down well with the voters of Corder's district. But my experience in the last election when I ran against Corder in the Republican primary was that a lot of Republicans I talked to disagreed with Corder's votes and bill sponsorships, often at the level of complete bewilderment. It wasn't that there were angry, but they found how he voted and the bills he sponsored so bizarre that they seemed to have trouble holding Corder responsible for his actions. Yet they still planned to vote for him, because...well, they went to church with him (and a church that can't possibly be happy with that sexual orientation bill he sponsored), and he was from Elmore County. (Our district includes Elmore and Boise Counties, and Elmore is the majority of the votes.)
I'm really hoping that someone from Elmore County runs against Corder in the Republican primary next time around. As near as I can tell, that's the only way to unseat someone who votes more like a Democrat than a Republican.
Thank God The Blunderer-In-Chief Hired A Few Honest People
This article that originally came from the New York Times shows that someone understands that crises cause judgment errors--and without the self-righteousness of the left:WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
The four memos that the ACLU sought, and that the Obama Administration released, are available here, and are worth reading. While I would certainly describe the interrogation techniques as unpleasant, they are (with the exception of waterboarding) more psychologically manipulation than torture in a physical sense. And the first of these memos, from August of 2002, when we were still waiting for another shoe to drop (or have its fuse lit on an airliner), discusses one of three waterboarded al-Qaeda leader, Zubaydah, who had shown considerable resistance to less harsh interrogation techniques.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Mr. Bush, said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a separate interview with Fox, endorsed that conclusion and said he has asked the C.I.A. to declassify memos detailing the gains from the harsh interrogations.
Having exposed these techniques, such as locking Zubaydah in a box with a "stinging insect" (actually a caterpillar) because he was freaked out by bugs, many of them are no longer likely to be very effective in the future. And you know what, even if the U.S. never ever used waterboarding again, leaving al-Qaeda in the dark about what might happen in interrogation is something of a good thing. Sometimes the fear of what might be waiting for you is the scariest thing of all.
I am sure that may Democrats are saying, "Well, how would you like to be treated this way?" I wouldn't. But then again, I don't run around hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, nor do I execute people by beheading them. Don't do things like that, and it makes it far less likely that you have to worry about it. And I also know that if I fell into the hands of al-Qaeda (which is about as likely as ending up in Angelina Jolie's male harem), that regardless of the interrogation techniques used by the CIA, I would be subject to severe abuse. It's part of what al-Qaeda does--gouging out eyes, using power tools, etc.
One of the most interesting aspects of the series 24 is that it gives you something of a clue of the sort of circumstances that cause good people to engage in repugnant interrogation practices--because the results of not getting that information will be far more ugly. And it is apparent that there was more torture, in the real sense of the world, in many single episodes of 24 than there was used against high ranking al-Qaeda operatives.
Another point: there were a lot of people held at Gitmo who were taken not by U.S. or Coalition forces on the battlefield, but supposedly taken on the battlefield by various Afghan warlords. There is some serious question as to whether many of them were even enemy combatants. That I understand. There is no allegation that these people were subject to these "enhanced" interrogation techniques. From what I read, a total of three high ranking al-Qaeda operatives were waterboarded--and that's the only one of the techniques revealed in these memos that I would call torture.
The Obama Administration keeps going back and forth about prosecuting Bush Administration officials for these memos. I actually hope that they do--starting with President Bush. This will force them to stop playing politics with this issue, because at trial, Bush will demand release of the documents concerning the intelligence obtained, and force a frank and open discussion of the dangers that our country was exposed to at the time. By the time it is done, the Obama Administration will look like the opportunistic crooks that they are, and all but the left will be marveling at the restraint used. More importantly, a lot of Democratic leadership will be called to testify that they were informed of this stuff, and in some cases, saw demonstrations of waterboarding. This will expose them for the lying and opportunistic creeps that they are.
Milwaukee Invites Lawsuits
A wonderful thing about the Internet is that when someone makes an utterly unbelievable statement (such as the one at Snowflakes in Hell from where I got this), you can just click over and see that, sure enough, the Milwaukee police chief clearly wants to see how many civil rights lawsuits he can get filed against his employer and himself.
The Wisconsin Attorney-General recently issued an opinion that because of the Wisconsin Constitution's bear arms clause, the open carrying of a firearm is constitutionally protected, and by itself, does not qualify as disorderly conduct. So the response of the Milwaukee police chief, as quoted in the April 21, 2009 Oshkosh, Wisc. Northwestern?MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Milwaukee’s police chief said Tuesday he’ll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.
Look, I think open carry is a bit rude, like fat people wearing spandex, or farting loudly, but since concealed carry is unlawful in Wisconsin, and Milwaukee has a serious murder problem--what's the alternative? Oh yes, being knocked to the ground by police so that you can file a sec. 1983 federal civil rights lawsuit against them for violating your constitutional rights. As Snowflakes in Hell points out:
Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he’ll continue to tell officers they can’t assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them."
State Justice Department spokesman Kevin St. John declined to comment.
Wisconsin is one of 29 states that allow people to openly carry a firearm without a permit. It’s one of two states that ban concealed weapons.If the City of Milwaukee wants to deal with multiple federal civil rights suits, under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, they’re welcome. In fact, I dare him to do what he’s suggesting. I would remind Cheif Ed Flynn that Section 1983 allows a plantiff to sue you personally, not just you in your official capacity, for violation of civil rights. So if you want to end up paying for a gun rights activist’s ammo supply for the rest of his life, I’d urge the City to get Flynn on a leash now, while this can still be handled cheaply. Once faces start hitting concrete, all bets are off.
I do wish liberals would get past their enthusiasm for shoving people onto the ground for exercising their constitutionally protected rights. But then they wouldn't be liberals, would they?
UPDATE: here's the lawsuit that I think led to the Attorney-General's opinion for events last year.
Bush's Cabinet Looks Better And Better
At least compared to the tax cheats and idiots that Obama seems to be hiring. The Canadians are now hopping made at Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano. From April 22, 2009 CTV.CA:
If Bush's Cabinet members were this sleazy and incompetent, the screeching from the news media would have been deafening.
G. Gordon Liddy's Show This Morning
I'll be on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show a little after 11:00 AM Eastern time today to discuss the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog's 4000th entry.
A Use For Old Computer Equipment
If you are old enough to remember Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, you might appreciate an engineer's use of old equipment to redo the song.
Comment Experiment
I'm turning on comments on my blog for a day or two as an experiment. I have been reluctant to do so because of:
1. Spammers putting web page addresses in comments.
2. Vulgar comments that I don't want to have to moderate or police.
3. Nasty arguments.
My reason for turning it on is that I get a lot of really thoughtful and useful emails from readers with additional information or an interesting take on what I have to say. It's easier to let you have your say.
Think of these comments as a dinner party. You wouldn't call your host names, and accuse him of being a narrow-minded bigot, or start using foul language in front of the other guests, for fear of not being invited back--or told to leave. If you really want to call me names, do so on your own blog. Genuine disagreements are fine, but I expect civility. If this turns into too big of a hassle, or too many people refuse to follow the rules, I'll turn it off again.
UPDATE: This assumes that I can beat blogger.com into turning comments on. I would ask you for comments explaining how to do this....
A Business That's Booming!
Obama can be so proud! From The Shooting Wire:
Look, I'm as pro-gun as they come. But guns intended primarily for the killing of people are a necessary tragedy. They are necessary, because we live in a world with private criminals and public criminals who are prepared to do things so horrible that killing another person, under some circumstances, is the lesser evil.
SMYRNA, GEORGIA -- With the 2009 fiscal year in the books, handgun manufacturer GLOCK, Inc. has announced a 36% increase in pistol sales over 2008 sales. Coming off of five consecutive years of sustained growth, the company that focuses exclusively on semi-automatic handguns for Commercial, Law Enforcement and Federal/Military sales is preparing for another strong year in FY 2010.
I respect Glock for filling a legitimate need. But it is rather like a country having a military, or buying security cameras, or car alarms, or training rape counselors. They're all necessary. But they are all sad reminders that we live in a fallen world.
Crazy Revolutionary Talk
Over at The Stupid Shall Be Punished, Joel Kennedy discusses that Town Hall meeting with Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID):Until yesterday, I thought I was a pretty strong 2nd Amendment stalwart, in that I knew that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right, and I couldn't imagine voting for someone who I thought would actually take away the guns that someone owned (other than those who had committed a felony). Yesterday, however, my wife and I went to a Town Hall Meeting with my Congressman, Rep. Walt Minnick, where our 2nd Amendment rights were discussed -- and I learned that there are a lot of people whose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a lot more radical than I would have thought likely outside an actual militia headquarters.
I'm disappointed to see that this is what Joel took out of what I said. I kept my remarks short and to the point for several reasons, and one of them was to make sure that no one was distracted by a long-winded discussion from the core point. As I pointed out afterwards,
...
Most of the rest of the attendees held forth on their belief that the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to (paraphrasing here) allow them to shoot military and/or law enforcement personnel if they feel the need to rebel against the government. Based on this reasoning, I'm assuming that they also believe that all laws against sedition should be unconstitutional.
...
[O]nly Clayton Cramer seemed honest enough to at least imply that, yes, he would regretfully attempt to gun down my old shipmates and my sons (if they join the military) if he felt the need to rise up against "tyranny".I took a minute or two to emphasize to Rep. Minnick that the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting or recreational use of guns, and I told the story of the woman I used to get my ice cream cones from, with an unstylish tattoo on her forearm: a letter and a series of digits. Everyone knew what that meant. I emphasized that revolution is the last and most dangerous step against tyranny--but that this is the reason for the Second Amendment, and that means that assault weapons are among the most clearly protected category of arms.
Perhaps Joel doesn't understand what a serial number tattoo means, or perhaps he would prefer not to understand it. The fact that he put scare quotes around "tyranny" suggests that he either doesn't consider the Holocaust to be real tyranny, or just finds the idea that this could ever happen in America absurd.
Fortunately, there are a lot of crazy people like me that talk in these terms; some of them are Clinton appointees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As Professor Volokh points, out Judge Gould's concurrence in the Nordyke decision yesterday is quite strong as to the purpose of the Second Amendment:
Now, if Joel Kennedy thinks that this is crazy talk, he might want to take it up with Judge Gould. He also might want to take it up with the Framers, who frequently discussed the right to keep and bear arms in relation to the danger of government tyranny--and that the an armed population was the last resort against such tyranny. If Joel thinks that armed revolution is always and necessarily wrong, as he seems to imply, no wonder he's a Democrat. As a liberal co-worker once put it, "Interfering with a democratically elected government's concentration camps would be fascist!"
Corvette In The Shop
It is going to be about $500 to replace that oil pressure sending unit, mostly because of the time required to remove the intake manifold, and then replace the gaskets. I'm pretty irritated that they didn't do a better job designing this to be repaired.
I can't recall the last time that I spent any real money on a car repair, and I haven't had car payments on the Corvette since last August, so I guess that I shouldn't cry too loudly about paying for a repair like this. If my little piece of automotive fluff starts to need repairs this expensive more than once or twice a year, however, the temptation will be very strong to find someone that wants a toy like this, and sell it.
A Milestone: The 4000th Entry on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
The Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog just crossed a rather significant milestone: the 4000th entry. Since I started this project in 2003, Dave Burnett and myself (and Pete Drum, before he went on to other activities) have been posting every news story that we could find in which civilians in the U.S. used a gun in self-defense. By "civilian" we mean persons who are not active or retired police officers (who have a special status in the law when it comes to carrying and using weapons).
These entries are (with one or two exceptions, such as when my neighbor chased an intruder out of his daughter's room) all derived from published news sources. Of necessity, this means that these were incidents sufficiently high profile to receive the attention of both police and news media.
The 4000th incident isn't necessarily typical, but it isn't all that atypical, either. No shots were fired. The mere display of a gun by a concealed weapon permit holder stopped a nasty road rage confrontation from escalating to violence. And contrary to the claims that many opponents of shall issue made in state after state of what would happen if shall issue laws were passed, the person with the gun wasn't the aggressor; he was the victim of a person who clearly lacked sufficient self-control to cool off.
Regular readers know that the reason that I started the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog was an email exchange between myself and anti-gun Professor John J. Donohue back in 2003, in which he claimed that legitimate defensive uses of guns by civilians were extremely rare. Thanks, Professor Donohue, for making me do this!
Along the way, we started adding labels by state and interesting characteristics of the incidents. Some interesting statistics from these 4000 incidents:
By state: Alaska (31); Alabama (143); Arkansas (63); Arizona (98); California (265); Colorado (48); Connecticut (18); D.C. (2); Delaware (16); Florida (368); Georgia (161); Hawaii (3); Iowa (14); Idaho (19); Illinois (61); Indiana (117); Kansas (37); Kentucky (69); Louisiana (102); Massachusetts (22); Maryland (30); Maine (15); Michigan (118); Minnesota (29); Missouri (89); Mississippi (79); Montana (19); North Carolina (184); North Dakota (6); Nebraska (14); New Hampshire (22); New Jersey (13); New Mexico (29); Nevada (45); New York (87); Ohio (184); Oklahoma (102); Oregon (44); Pennsylvania (146); South Carolina (109); South Dakota (8); Tennessee (181); Texas (506); Utah (39); Virginia (83); Virgin Islands (1); Vermont (7); Washington (76); Wisconsin (33); West Virginia (22); Wyoming (9). (To find all incidents involving a particular state, use this URL with the post office two letter abbreviation substituted for AK.)
There were 212 incidents involving concealed carry permit holders.
Not every outcome was happy. There were 30 incidents in which the defender was killed (although often saving the life of another, or preventing the attacker from escaping). There were 191 incidents in which the defender was shot (although not necessarily killed).
For all the talk by gun control advocates that "a criminal will just take away your gun and use against you" there were only six incidents in which the defender's gun was taken away and used against the defender. By comparison, there were 183 incidents in which the criminal's gun was taken away and used against the criminal! More startling is that many of these involved victims that were unarmed at the start of the crime.
There were 67 female defenders, and 15 defenders under the age of 18.
Sobering numbers: there were 90 criminals identified as being under 18, and 1009 of these incidents were home invasions--where the criminals intentionally broke into a dwelling that they knew was occupied.
For all the talk of inadequately trained civilians, we have one incident involving mistaken identity.
As I have previously mentioned, while there were some pretty scummy characters engaged in self-defense that have popped up over these last 5 1/2 years, and a few incidents that were technically legal but poorly advised, I have been impressed how many of these have been perfectly reasonable people doing perfectly reasonable things--until they were attacked by a criminal.
Ninth Circuit Incorporates Second Amendment Against The States!
This is major news. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the 14th Amendment's due process clause incorporates the Second Amendment against the states! The decision is Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009). I am work right now, so I won't have time to analyze this until later, but this just about guarantees a Supreme Court hearing on this in the near future--before the Obamination has a chance to appoint a replacement justice.
This doesn't mean that every state or local gun control law will go down in defeat. (This particular county ordinance survives as "reasonable regulation.") But it does mean that state laws adopted with explicitly racial purposes, such as California's discretionary concealed weapon permit law, are in serious danger.
UPDATE: A day late for Patriot's Day (the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington), but still a good decision. Let me emphasize: the decision did not directly address the question of what standard of review should be used. In the case before them, Alameda County prohibited a gun show on country property. The decision essentially said that the Heller case had found a fundamental right, but that involved possession of a gun in your home for self-defense. The Heller case did not find a fundamental right to have a gun, anywhere, anytime, or on county property. As Professor Volokh points out, this is similar toWebster v. Reproductive Health Servs. (1989), which upheld a state law banning "the use of public employees and facilities [including any public institution, public facility, public equipment, or any physical asset owned, leased, or controlled by this state or any agency or political subdivisions thereof] for the performance or assistance of nontherapeutic abortions."
Government as landlord has considerably more authority than it does on public streets or on private property. That landlord authority is not unlimited, but even abortion, which the Supreme Court has (in my view, incorrectly) defined as a constitutional right does not prohibit the government as landlord from regulating or restricting exercise of that right in their facilities.
Remember: the Heller decision upheld the right to have a handgun in your own home for self-defense. Imposing that same view onto the states will create a pile of trouble for California's Assault Weapons Control Act, to the extent that it prohibits possession and transfer of firearms to law-abiding adults. It also opens up the door to challenging California's abusive concealed weapon permit process, which as I mention above, has a racist history, and an elitist and corrupt present.
An interesting aspect to the decision is that apparently because Alameda County "won" they can't appeal to the Supreme Court. (According to Professor Volokh, they can request an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit, but that's not very likely to happen.) Only the "loser" on this can appeal to the Supreme Court--and we have some reason to do so. In addition, other circuits are considering this same question at the moment--and having the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit decide for incorporation may help with the other circuits. The worst that happens is we get a circuit split, and another chance for the Supreme Court to make a ruling while the five justices that formed the majority in Heller are still on the bench. The best that happens is that other circuits decide this decision was correct, and follow along.
Al-Qaeda, Prostitution, & Baghdad
This April 18, 2009 New York Times article discusses how the relative peace and calm of Baghdad is allowing traditional vice problems, such as gambling, alcohol, and prostitution, to return. An interesting point:One police detective said he would not dream of enforcing the law against prostitutes. “They’re the best sources we have,” said the detective, whose name is being withheld for his safety. “They know everything about JAM and Al Qaeda members,” he said, using the acronym for Jaish al-Mahdi or Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia.
It is an article of faith among liberals that every person who disapproves of homosexuality is actually a closeted homosexual, or one who is fighting those urges. There are certainly enough really embarrassing examples of this, such as Ted Haggard. Can we be surprised that members of two zealous Islamist groups, JAM and Al-Qaeda, would be frequenting prostitutes? Is it surprising that Democrats, the party of raising taxes, and calling the paying of taxes a patriotic duty, seem to have some trouble actually following through? What about gun control advocates breaking lots of gun control laws?
I think there's actual a bit more than just hypocrites screaming about vices to distract attention from their own failings. There are people who genuinely consider action X to be sinful--but are so deeply attracted to it that they can't stop themselves. When they preach against X, it isn't because they don't consider X a sin, but because they are trying to prevent others from going down the same destructive path that they are traveling.
In other cases, such persons may be decrying X in the hope that they will receive absolution for their own actions. "Maybe God will forgive me a little for what I did, because I tried to prevent others from doing this."
Some of the 9/11 terrorists spent the night before in strip joints. I suspect that since they were headed off a martyrs' death, that whatever sin they were involved in, would be straightened out by their part in causing thousands of innocent deaths. (My, that's twisted logic.)
Of course, opposition to X sometimes just means...opposition to X. We don't assume that every person who advocates for the environment is secretly running a strip mine in the Appalachians, or even that they have that desire.
What A Beautiful Day
When I was back in D.C. last year for the Heller case, a rather prominent attorney looked at my wife and me over lunch and said, "Why do you live in Idaho?" Here's the answer: the view from my back patio, where I spent part of the afternoon reading Vanity Fair, drinking Limeade.
Click to enlarge
No Longer Faded
I mentioned that I had acquired a used but functional Louisville Ladder for climbing to the top of Big Bertha. The paint was faded--and having a high visibility ladder in the dark is somewhat important. Problem solved!
Before
Click to enlarge
After
Click to enlarge
The joys of fluorescent orange spray paint!
