Anti-rights advocates like to make a lot of noises about how they are only motivated by “public safety” and “common sense” when they work to abridge law-abiding citizens’ individual rights, limit access to firearms, close non-existant, mythical “loopholes”, or enact whatever other totalitarianistic, anti-gun measures they desire. Unfortunately for them, reality has a nasty habit of proving them liars, time and time again:
An 82 year old woman is no match for a younger, healthier man physically. With a firearm, the simple action of being able to pull a trigger puts her on par with an NFL linebacker. This is what the anti-gunners want to prevent. They prefer to see the old lady beaten to death rather than have the ability to defend herself with the best tool possible. They claim their laws are for safety, and it’s just another lie.
Today, a nice, elderly lady is alive because she owned a firearm, carried it, and was willing to use it… and yet anti-rights advocates like MikeB302000, Laci the Dog Bitch, and countless others would have simply preferred if this “self-proclaimed ’stubborn, old broad’” had simply died under a hail of blows from her own cane.
And after that, the court clerk turns to Ben & lawyers and said, “I guess I’ll be seeing you in civil court.”
Ben: “No, you won’t. We’ll be in US District Court.”
Evidence clearly showed Ben could not have been in the place where he was alleged to have been – he was in Sacto, cellphone tech positioning evidence subpoenaed, plus multiple witnesses.
The comment about the US District Court means that one of my wishes is probably going to come true – specious criminal charges can carry federal punishments, and it is looking like Mr. Cannon is going to follow through on my idea of prosecuting the woman making the charges to the fullest extent of the law (you can contact me later to thank me for the idea, Ben).
All is well that ends well, and while these circumstances have not yet ended perfectly, it looks like they are well on their way. Works for me.
(This post was supposed to be up this morning, and failed for some reason. My apologies.)
In my stumbling and bumbling around the internet, I have to ask whether or not this is such a good idea:
These unique Chilean Mausers have been converted to fire .308 and are in good condition. They are Pre-1898, and therefore an antique by definition. This means we can ship these directly to an individual, and the gun does NOT need to go through a dealer.
These rugged rifles make an excellent addition to any collection, a genuine, battle-used rifle built like a tank. These are fully functional, firing rifles!
To begin with, the 8mm Mauser round has a maximum pressure allowable of 57,000 psi, and the .308 Winchester round pushes out 62,000 psi, and while the .308 round is smaller in almost all dimensions than the 8mm Mauser round, I still have to wonder how well those modifications will remain attached to the firearm… Couple that with literally 100+ year-old metals, and the pucker-factor increases beyond my comfort level.
On the other hand, antique firearms require no background checks, do not need to be passed through FFL’s hands, do not need Form 4473s filled out on them, can be shipped straight to your door without a Curio and Relic license, and do not need to be documented anywhere. A rifle that can be delivered to my door, no questions asked, no records kept, and can handle modern, commonly-available calibers… well, that temptation just about overcomes the puckerness. Hm.
So we actually ended up receiving two census forms – one at our apartment and one at our house. Unsurprisingly, both letters were wrapped in the same envelope proclaiming, “YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.”
I do not think they want me to respond to both of them – in fact, I am fairly certain it would be a violation of law to respond to both of them, but I never credited the federal government with an overabundance of intelligence.
In any case, one of the forms will eventually make it back to some GS-2, who will open it up and see that Block 1 has a “2″ in it, and the rest of the form is blank. Although, depending on how ornery I feel in the morning, Block 9 might have “Some other race” checked, with “American” as the fill-in-the-blank answer… You all are more than welcome to do with your forms as you see fit, and whatever consequences there are for your decisions will be yours and yours alone… and the same goes for me.
Well, this is starting to get interesting. As I mentioned yesteday, good ol’ Leonard Embody / kwikrnu had his handgun carry permit revoked by the state of Tennessee on the basis that he “poses a material likelihood of risk to the public”. What I did not mention, because I did not know it at the time, is that determination was directly related to this letter from the Belle Meade police department:
I [Thomas Sexton] am the Criminal Investigator for the Belle Meade Poilce Department and in that capacity request that the Handgun Carry permit issued to Leonard Stanni Embody be revoked.
This request is not made lightly and based on the increasingly unsafe methods of displaying and/or carrying a firearm by Leonard Stanni Embody over the past 24 months.
Leonard Stanni Embody has shown by his actions that he is repeatedly engaging in behavior while carrying or displaying a firearm that compromises the safety of the general public, responding law enforcement officers, and his own
On January 22, 2010 Leonard Stanni embody did knowingly and willfully carry a weapon within the City Limits of Belle Meade. Leonard Stanni Embody did carry the weapon in an unsafe manner, in an unsafe location and in an unsafe condition. Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17-1342 (a) (3) states that any actions by the permit holder that poses a material likelihood of risk or harm to the public will be grounds to suspend or revoke a handgun permit.
Recent incidents have been well documented and published by Leonard Stanni Embody clearly show that his actions clearly are for his own benefit and do not represent the actions of a responsible citizen wishing to safely carry a handgun for legitimate purposes.
As a reminder for those who have not been keeping up with kwikrnu’s exploits, he openly carried, in his hand, a replica of a Navy Model 1851 blackpowder revolver, and was unsurprisingly stopped and questioned by Belle Meade police officers. The city ordinances of that area are somewhat peculiar, predate Tennessee’s preemption laws, and read:
11-602. Weapons and firearms generally.
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brass knucks, pistol, revolver, or any other dangerous weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand. However, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to members of the United States Armed Forces carrying such weapons as are prescribed by applicable regulations nor to any officer or policeman engaged in his official duties, in the execution of process, or while searching for or engaged in arresting persons suspected of having committed crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition shall not apply to persons who may have been summoned by such officer or policeman to assist in the discharge of his said duties. (Ord. 71-6, § 2.12. 1987 Code, § 10-212)
Leonard Embody / kwikrnu maintains that he was carrying the firearm with the barrel pointed at the ground, that his finger was not on the trigger, that the hammer was down on an empty chamber, that he wore a reflective vest in accordance with another Belle Meade ordinance, and that he obeyed the above ordinance by carrying the right model firearm in his hand.
I will 100% agree that having a revolver’s hammer down on an empty chamber is far from an “unsafe condition” – that model revolver has no real “safety”, per se, but in its current arrangement, a discharge would require the hammer to be completely pulled back and the trigger to be pulled. Likewise, I am not entirely sure how walking in the street (as required by Belle Meade – they do not have sidewalks, and instead make cars get out of the way of joggers/walkers – go figure) with a mandated reflective vest is an “unsafe location”, especially given that the incident was passed by joggers doing the same thing.
However, I will also 100% agree that carrying a firearm openly in your hand qualifies as an “unsafe manner” of doing so – not only are you more likely to drop it, or grip it more tightly and accidentally trip the trigger, but other handgun carriers (such as myself) are very likely to understandably misinterpret your actions and take necessary steps to keep our families and ourselves safe. Likewise, slinging an AK-47 style rifle across your back is unsafe in much the same manner, especially when the firearm in question was chosen specifically for its confusing appearance, and was decorated in a fashion to intentionally and maliciously deceive onlookers and police officers. I do not know to what other issues Mr. Sexton is referring in that 24-month window, but those two pretty much seal the deal for me.
Kwikrnu’s claim throughout the entire Belle Meade debacle was that he was only abiding by the above-quoted city ordinance, so obviously what he was doing was both safe and legal (*more on the “safe” part later). This is where the “interesting” kicks in – yesterday, the NRA-ILA put up an alert regarding Belle Meade, reading:
On Wednesday, March 17, the Belle Meade Board of Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 2010-2) that would forbid any person with a handgun carry permit to carry within the city limits.
Not only does this legislation create a victim zone inside Belle Meade by disarming law-abiding citizens, it is also a clear violation of Tennessee’s preemption statutes.
“There is a rumor going around that we are going to ban handguns, guns in the city,” said Mayor Gray Thornburg.
She said the rumor is a “complete misunderstanding.” The city is merely realigning their ordinance to be in line with state regulations.
“I know that a whole bunch of people in Belle Meade own guns, and I’m sure that there are plenty who have permits to carry,” she said. “They are absolutely right. I wouldn’t violate somebody’s Second Amendment right by banning guns.”
The current Belle Meade municipal code includes a section on firearms and weapons that says “it is unlawful for any person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed and razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brass knuckles, pistol, revolver or any other dangerous weapon or instrument…”
It also includes the phrase “except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand.”
The new ordinance deletes the exception that would include the Navy black powder pistol Leonard Embody carried when he walked down Belle Meade Boulevard in mid-February.
You will notice that Mayor Thornburg very successfully defended herself from a particularly vicious strawman – no one, not even the NRA, claimed that Belle Meade was trying to ban all handguns or all firearms inside the city, but rather that they were considering an ordinance that would forbid anyone from carrying a handgun.
Now, as I mentioned, Tennessee does have preemption, which basically means localities within the states cannot regulate the ownership, transportation, carrying, or selling of firearms any more than the state does. Unfortunately, that preemption only activated in 1986, and any already-existing municipal codes were “grandfathered” in… and Belle Meade’s “in the hand” code is one such example. Furthermore, changing/editing an already-existing city ordinance is not treated as creating a new one by the state, so it is still grandfathered (and, yes, there is all manner of room for abuse in that arrangement).
So what does this intended ordinance-change actually do? It removes “except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand” from the above-quoted ordinance.
Well the family lawyer got back to me this morning, he is a practicing attorney in Davidson County where this incident occured. here are some simple reasons why it is legal for HCP holders in TN to carry. It is considered a defense to the red [bold] portion of the law found in many local municipalities.
“Under T.C.A. § 39-17-1307(b) if you carry a firearm, with the intent to go armed, you could be charged with “unlawful possession” unless you have a “defense” recognized by law. Unlawful possession under this subsection of the Tennessee Code is a misdemeanor. ”
There are currently several statutory defenses available under the Tennessee Code. The most obvious defenses apply to those who have lawful gun carry permits issued by the Department of Safety or are otherwise authorized by law to carry firearms. (i.e. a police officer or member of the military)
kwik would have been completely legal to carry a holstered loaded pistol openly or concealed without worry. From what I told my attorney he believes simply kwik mis-interpreted the law.
[0640 18MAR10 Update]In an email, Steve in TN has this insight:
I called a guy I know in the BMPD and he specifically stated that permits will be honored just as they always have been.
[/Update]
That seems to be the impression that I, speaking as a non-lawyer, am getting from the Mayor’s statements and my reading of the ordinance as well – with the current verbiage, open carry of an Army or Navy revolver is legal with or without a handgun carry permit in Belle Meade, and all other forms of carry are legal with the permit. The city council appears to be considering just getting rid of the archaic “in the hand” bit, and relying solely on the state’s permitting process instead – but, again, I am not a lawyer, so I obviously have no clue what I am talking about.
Additionally, this seems like the kind of thing that could have been brought up at a city council meeting, with the observation that this ordinance is horribly out of date (bear in mind cartridge pistols started taking over shortly after the production of the Army/Navy Model 1851s), and the city might just have ended up doing exactly the same thing as it is doing now… only without the publicity orgy, the detain-and-question, and all the rest of the froofera. Of course, Leonard Embody / kwikrnu appears to have made absolutely no attempt to question or challenge this law in a letter to the city/mayor, or through an appearance at a city council meeting, and instead went straight for the method that would get him the most attention and the most exposure – apparently the term “escalation” is not in his vocabulary.
So where are we in all of this? In a continuation of a pre-existing pattern of attention-whoring, self-serving, potentially-dangerous activities, kwikrnu did something – something that might have been completely unecessary – to make a point, when that point could have been, far more easily, brought up in a simple conversation or letter, and, in the process, got his Handgun Carry Permit suspended for finally providing the state the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.
Is that a win? Sure, if you care about knocking down a potentially-irrelevant city ordinance, no matter the cost. Me, I just consider that pyrrhic idiocy.
(*) Legal does not necessarily equate to safe, and safe does not necessarily equate to legal. It is not, and never should have been, our government’s role, at any level, to legalize safe activities or ban unsafe activities.
(Obligatory disclaimer that I really should integrate with the terms of use: I am not a lawyer. I do not portray one on television. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. My understanding of the law is based on my own personal interpretation and reading of it, and should not be considered to be binding, factual, or actual. Likewise, any opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone, and are just that – opinions.)
As you know, the House Judiciary Committee passed Restaurant Carry 2.0 last night. The bill’s sponsor, Curry Todd, came to the TFA meeting and I got a chance to speak with him about some things.
The process will go like this: The bill goes to the Budget Subcommittee first, probably next Tuesday. The week after, it will go to the full committee (Finance, Ways, and Means) because the bill has a positive fiscal note. Basically that means that it will cost the state less money if the bill passes, so it won’t be a problem.
After it passes out of Finance, it will go to the Calendar and Rules Committee, where they will add it to the calendar for the full House. Todd expects that to be mid-April.
I still don’t have the full text of the bill because it’s not posted on the State’s website. It’s not going to be what’s up there today. The bill as amended completely strips out the restriction on guns in places that serve alcohol.
Remember, what we have right now is a blanket prohibition on guns where alcohol is served under TCA 39-17-1305. Then we carve out exceptions for law enforcement, security personnel, and owners/managers/employees. HB3125 as ammended deletes 39-17-1305.
A judge cannot rule that the absence of a law is unconstitutional. Well, not without getting slapped by an appellate judge, they can’t.
It will still be illegal to carry without a permit, or while drinking, or into a place properly posted under 1359.
The bill also changes the posting requirements from “must be substantially similar to” to “must be” specific language. There was apparently some ambiguity on whether Randy Rayburn’s “No guns ever, free parking always” signs were legally binding so Todd and Sen. Jackson are clarifying that part of TCA 39-17-1359 and putting up a PDF on the state’s website that businesses can print out and stick on their doors, eliminating the “ZOMG Signs Cost Money!” argument.
I plan on being in the gallery for the House Vote. You are welcome to join me. As soon as a date is set, I’ll let you know.
Frank was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call observed and questioned Frank because he was Open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. “Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)”
Details of Frank’s encounter can be viewed by going to our website http://www.wisconsincarry.org and clicking on the October 16th blog entry.
Frank was unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally siezed. He was later released without being charged.
Wisconsin Carry filed suit on Frank’s behalf for his unlawful detainment, arrest, and seizure of his firearm.
On behalf of myself, the board of Wisconsin Carry Inc. and all of our members, we are pleased to announce that The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.
In short, two police officers unnecessarily and illegally detained a law-abiding citizen simply because he was openly carrying a firearm, and now those two police officers, in addition to the city which employs them, are getting their hands rightfully slapped. Hopefully, this case and the judgement against the officers and city will serve as a deterrent against any other governmental representatives in Wisconsin who would operate outside the realm of what is legal… hopefully.
Sure, this incident never would have happened if the victim had not dared to legally openly carry his firearm… but then the two police officers and city involved never would have had the benefit of a learning experience, either. A law-abiding citizen’s rights were upheld, and an overbearing government was told to sit down and shut up… oh, and give some money to that citizen you unlawfully detained.
Smells like a win to me, and while it was a win for open carry in specific, it was also a win for all firearm carriers, all firearm owners, and all Americans in general. Something tells me not to expect that kind of admission, or even recognition, from the standard sources of ZOMGOPENCARRYISTHEENDOFGUNRIGHTSASWEKNOWTHEM!!!111!!! hysteria.
Learn to distinguish the difference betwen errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing ot correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that whcih you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality. Give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know; but treat as potential killers thaose specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a license, that they ‘just feel it’ – or those who reject an irrefutable argument by saying: ‘It’s only logic,’ which means: ‘It’s only reality.’ The only realm opposed to reality is the realm and premise of death.
These people have been shown the facts, figures, statistics, logic, and reality time and time and time again, and still consciously choose to remain willfully ignorant, still desire to control, govern, and limit free men based on their feelings and their feelings alone, and still continue to write it all off as “only logic”, if they can bring themselves to admit it at all. They are, indeed, aiding and abetting criminals by actively, intentionally, and maliciously seeking to leave law-abiding citizens disarmed and defenseless – unwilling victims fabricated by another person’s baseless desires. “Potential killers” indeed – some have even expressed the desire to be killers, while others have “rejoiced” at the senseless murder of an average American mother.
Such people are, by their very nature, intrinsically evil, and should be handled accordingly.
However, today’s Randian quoting does not stop there…:
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of criminals vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
Remind you of any governments you know?
For those who have read the book in question, you will know that those two above quotes come out of John Galt’s three-hour, 56-page radio address / monologue / speech. Speaking as someone who actually managed to read that thing, in its entirety, and is damned close to finishing its entire host book, let me say this: if you are interested in reading Atlas Shrugged, get the book from a library, flip to page 923 (assuming the Penguin 50th Anniversary Edition printing), read from the middle of it to the end of page 979, and return the book whence it came.
In those 56 pages, Ayn laid out the moral, reason, rationale, and cause celebre of the book in sufficiently plain language and logic that anyone with at least a high school freshman’s reading comprehension ability (accounting for the decline of the American education system, natch) could grasp it, and do so without the superfluous, holier-than-thou, strawman-burning, mysoginy-wrapped-in-kink, repeatedly-bash-your-head-in-with-a-sledgehammer, have-you-gotten-the-message-yet pontification delivered by cardboard characters that fills the other 1002 pages. This is not to say that the speech is a particularly easy or quick read, but at least it is shorter than the book as a whole.
But, hey, if you go in for that kind of thing, knock yourself out – I was just trying to save you some time. If only I had not promised myself I would read this gorramed book cover-to-cover…
Alright, I know a lot of people say a lot of good things about Cheaper Than Dirt. I know a lot of people are getting some amount of money from them in the form of advertisements, endorsements, and sponsorships. I know CTD’s blog’s author stops by here periodically, and has put up a lot of useful posts regarding just about every topic related to firearms.
Emergency and Survival Kits When an emergency hits, we don’t always have enough warning to prepare for it. The movie 2012 released on November 13, describes what could potentially happen on 12/21/2012 based on the end of the Ancient Mayan calendar. Throughout history, the Mayan calendar correctly identified evolutionary events. According to the calendar we are now in the Fourth and Final age. Whether you believe or not, it still makes you think, what if all the electronics suddenly stopped working, an asteroid struck the earth, sunspots erase magnetic stored data, a flu pandemic effected millions, would you be able to survive with what you currently have. Fortunately you have time to prepare and we have taken the guess work out of it for you.
The reality of 2012 seems far fetched, but are you prepared for hurricanes, earth quakes, extended power outages, a wide spread pandemic, or turmoil from the Middle East? The primary requirements are food, fuel, water, and shelter; our kits contain basic survival items. FEMA, Homeland Security, and other Emergency Response Teams look to us to fulfill their needs during emergencies. We are experts at supplying the gear you need to survive.
Perfect for at home or the office, there is enough basic survival gear for a family of four for 30 days, these are good to have on hand for natural disasters or the 2012 phenomenon.
Well, that “sensationalize” part might actually be right.
To their (limited) credit, they did admit that the events portrayed in the movie are “far fetched”… right before they again capitalized on the name- and fear-recognition of the “2012 phenomenon” right at the end of their advertisement. *sigh*
Believe me, I understand being prepared for the unexpected – much to my wife’s chagrin, I am already making plans for various corners of the house, what we can store where, what we can get now that we have the space/ability to keep it, and so forth. Even in the apartment, we had enough food in long-term, dessicant-filled storage to last the both of us upwards of a month if we had to – our only limitation was water, and we had contingencies for that as well. But those preparations were and will be made with the knowledge that actual bad things like record-freezing temperatures, earthquakes, floods, and whatever-the-hell else do happen… unlike things like the Earth’s crust melting, destabilizing, and spinning around.
As we discussed not too long ago here, people are more than within their rights, and more than welcome, to advertise their products however they see fit… and I am completely within my rights to call them out when I see them basing those advertisements on the fear of a silly fictional fabrication, especially when there is enough real bad stuff going on already.
Part of the reason taxes spool me right the hell up every year is that every time I look at my finalized W-2, I get to see 6.2% of my income stolen away from me, never to be seen again, in the form of a payment into the black box of “Social Security” (what a misnomer). Oh, sure, the original plan was that 6.2% would go into some kind of investment account that would accrue interest as I continued to deposit into it over the years, and then I would have that account available to me to live off of when I retired… but the system stopped working that way years ago. Thanks to mismanagement and doubly thanks to our Benificent Government borrowing out of the Social Security pool, that money goes into the system just long enough to go right back out and into the pockets of our grandparents, which is great for them, and disastrous for us – pyramid schemes can only last so long.
For more than two decades, Social Security collected more money in taxes than it paid out in benefits — billions more each year.
Not anymore. This year, for the first time since the 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security, the retirement program is projected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes — nearly $29 billion more.
Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg’s municipal offices.
Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn’t be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.
Technically, Social Security is now broke. Since it’s politically unthinkable to admit this, the Treasury will have to go cap in hand to the bond markets and buy more short-term debt in order to keep the benefits flowing. This will heavily increase a structural federal deficit that is already unsustainable.
And lest you think this is not going to be something you are going to have to worry about until some nebulous point in the future, you would be wrong:
The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.
If we lose that rating, it will mean Very Bad Things (TM) for the bond market, the American dollar, and our economy as a whole.
I guess we chose a hell of a time to buy a house… On the one hand, mortage rates were absurdly low, and we now have the space to have a garden, store all manner of things, and modify things as we see fit. On the other hand, we are now out a lot of money that could be used to prepare for what is looking to be a very rough-and-rocky next few years… Here is to hoping that it is nowhere near as bad as a lot of people are starting to think…
(This Tuesday-dstroying news is courtesy of Say Uncle.)
Proposed ammendment (by Chairman Coleman?) on the bill to allow the “International No Guns” symbol in leiu of the proper signage. Tabled (killed).
Proposed ammendment by Sontonay removes liability from restaurantuers for actions taken by carry permit holders inside the restaurant. Tabled (killed), though I think this one was reasonable. Probably killed because Sontonay brought it up.
Bill passes out of committee. 8-4. Goes to Finance Ways and Means
In all honesty, this particular news report was of a sufficiently non-event quality to me that I did not even bat an eye reading across its headline yesterday… but then my mother asked me about it, and I started realizing just how much pants-wetting hysterics there had been online about it, and I figured it might be a good excuse to put up another post today.
In short, one of the firearms used at the Pentagon shooting, and another firearm used at another shooting in Las Vegas, once passed through the hands of the Memphis police department. The only reasonable response to that kind of news is, “Yeah, and…?” but, unfortunately, “reasonable” seems to be describing fewer and fewer American citizens.
Basically, the pistol used at the Pentagon attack was seized by the Memphis PD in 2005, and then traded to a firearm dealer in exchange for another gun that was “better for police work” (i.e. was another copy of another firearm the police department already had parts, magazines, and ammunition for). From there, it bounced out of Tennessee, around dealers in both Georgia and Pennsylvania, until it finally found its way into the hands of a private individual at a gun show in Las Vegas, who then sold the pistol to the man who would end up using it to shoot up the Pentagon.
Of course, this man was in possession of a letter from the California government telling him that due to his psychiatric problems, he was prohibited from purchasing firearms, and if I am not mistaken, purchasing handguns out of state, even in person-to-person transactions, is not legal either.
So, yes, the firearm the shooter illegally purchased after it had legally changed hands many, many times beforehand did, at one point in time, spend some time in the evidence locker at the Memphis PD. So what? Police departments sell of all manner of unclaimed or confiscated evidence and materials in order to raise funds for their operations – automobiles, firearms, whatever. What sense would it make to destroy a perfectly-fine piece of equipment that could bring in hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to already-under-funded police agencies? Would the people objecting to this practice be willing to fork over their own personal funds to buy the police departments the equipment they would have purchased with the proceeds from those sales? Something tells me to doubt it.
As the above-linked article says,
Rich Wyatt, a former police chief in Alma, Colo., who now operates a gun store — and who has bought weapons from police agencies — defended the practice of police selling guns.
“Maybe if they put the money they made selling the guns into training those officers better, they’d be better off,” said Wyatt. “Nobody ever, ever questions selling a car that was used in a crime. I am sad that officers were shot, but I don’t care where the guns came from. To say we need to chase guns is not the issue, we need to chase people.”
And as one of its commenters, The Dude (who might be abiding) wrote:
This isn’t the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Inanimate objects used to commit crimes don’t somehow become imbued with evil powers or curses. Selling guns to raise funds is no different than selling the swag from a drug raid at auction. Destroying these objects, which are legal to possess, is irrational in a time of tight budgets.
Now, if the Memphis police department had actually directly sold the firearms to the shooters – both prohibited persons – then we would have a scandal worthy of a news report (and a full inquest, and a few firings, and so forth). But that is not what happened. Rather than darn-near-literally burn money, the police department decided to lawfully sell legally-ownable property to a legal recipient of that property, who then repeated the process with someone else, and so forth, until some idiot decided to sell a firearm to someone without even checking ID – blaming this incident on the Memphis PD is about as rational as blaming a drunk driving fatality, committed with a car they once impounded, on them.
But wait a second… if one were to listen to and believe the anti-rights advocates of America, one would know that the Tiahrt Amendment would never have allowed this kind of tracing for the firearm, so obviously this news report is a complete and utter fabrication. And, from the other side of the sarcasm spectrum, remind me again how we do not have a firearm registry in this country?
If you ever wondered why firearm owners are occasionally less-than-amused at the continual slings and arrows employed by anti-rights advocates, Joe Huffman has the comprehensive explanation, wrapping it up with:
If other specific enumerated rights were treated like firearms ownership there would likely be riots in the streets. But gun owners haven’t rioted. They haven’t called for the murders of those that insulted them. Yet similar infringement on rights has or would likely cause a major social disruption. And despite remarkably good behavior under some extremely adverse circumstances the instances of gun owners striking out in anger at these abuses is extremely rare. And what do we get for this good behavior despite substantial reasons for being angry? They use that anger as further justification to infringe upon our rights.
But, trust me, you want to read the whole thing… though the people who most need to probably will not.
Once it passes out of Judiciary, it goes to the Floor for debate and eventual passage. The timeframe I’ve been given is about 5 weeks for full passage in the House.
We have significantly less trouble getting things done in the Senate, with Mae Beavers chairing Senate Judiciary and Ron Ramsey as Lt. Governor (who, in turn, runs the Senate). I’d expect some pretty quick action in the Senate once the House passes it.
I’ve been told that legislators are trying to get this passed quickly because they are planning on another veto override.
I know that sabot-encased slugs from smoothbore shotguns are basically useless (believe me, I know, although “basically useless” does not preclude them from putting very large holes in things), but they certainly do look nifty:
Also, good lord macro photography shows off dust/dirt.
When I get around to it, they will be used to perforate something, and replaced with brenneke-style slugs… not as though I forsee the need to use either, but you never know.
Back in December, Leonard Embody, an individual who posts by the name of “kwikrnu” on the Internet, openly carried a Draco pistol-receivered AK-47 in Radnor Lake Park. The pistol was intentionally painted in such a way that would be confusing to police officers (as expressly stated by Leonard himself), and he was detained until such time as the park rangers and police officers called to the scene were able to verify that the firearm was, indeed, fabricated as a pistol, and was not simply a stockless Short Barreled Rifle.
It seems like this sheriff is using the letter of the law to thwart the intent of the law to make some kind of political or public statement.
That sounds a lot like a guy I read about who found an arcane city ordinance and used it as an excuse to walk the streets of Belle Meade brandishing a black powder revolver.
That reminds me of the saying: “You reap what you sow.”
For those interested in such things, that basis is an accepted reason in accordance with Tennessee State Code 39-17-1352 (a) (3), though the preceeding clause requires “a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder” is such a risk. I wonder what the Tennessee Department of Safety has on ol’ Leonard.
I am not a lawyer, and I am speaking solely from a position of personal opinion, but Leonard/kwikrnu has been asking for this for a while… I do not understand why he is surprised that he finally received what he wanted.
Which brings us to the funniest part of this sad saga:
“I’m a private person,” Embody said. “I didn’t want to be in the spotlight. I didn’t want my name in the news reports.”
Really, Leonard? Is that why you whined about your non-existant persecution on asmanyfirearm-relatedforumsandboardsasyoucouldfind? I am not a lawyer, so I obviously have no idea what I am talking about, but if you are wanting to build a case as to your status as an honest citizen, this may not be the best way to do it.
At this point, I can only repeat those poignant words quoted above – you reap what you sow, and it seems as though harvest time has finally found kwikrnu. Here is to hoping that the blowback from this incident will be limited to him and him alone… but, unfortunately, I doubt it.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not portray one on television. I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. My understanding of the law is based on my own personal interpretation and reading of it, and should not be considered to be binding, factual, or actual. Likewise, any opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone, and are just that – opinions.)
Every time the uplifters try to pass another behavior modification law, I want them to swear on the Bible that it’s worth shooting a guy in the face over.
And that is the God’s honest truth… every time someone says “there ought to be a law”, they are, in fact, saying, “I believe that someone should shoot you, on my behalf, if you do not do as I desire”. In some cases, that kind of response is appropriate – murder is one of those things that cannot be tolerated in any circumstance. But in the cases of laws pertaining to not-really-crimes like placing coins in your ears? That is sheer idiocy.
Yes, I know some people will object that some of the punishments for those specious crimes consist of nothing more than fines, short-term incarcerations, or other limited responses. But what happens if those not-really-criminals object to the punishments? What happens if those not-really-criminals resist being taken off to jail for not-really-crimes?
Force. The agents of the government will use force to ensure their employer’s control over the populace, and if that force is resisted, it will simply be escalated.
All governmental legislation, laws, regulations, limitations, fees, and fines are backed up by the barrel of a gun. Some of us never forget that. Some of us never learned that, and it seems to me that we are going to have to change that if we are ever going to get anywhere.
Alright, Daylight Saving Time really needs to go away, if only because I am tired of spending that hour I gained/lost trying to find and correct all of the time-keeping devices in our home that did not update automatically. If you like more light in the evening, how about we just shift the entire clock back an hour, and call it done?
Starbucks is atrociously overpriced, and I hear they run their beans through the darker parts of Hades before they grind them, but I support businesses that support my rights (or at least recognize and respect them), so without further ado, here is me putting my money where my mouth is:
And, yes, I openly carried when I picked up that tin of tea – as I always do when I go out of the house these days (at least to places other than work) – and neither the employees nor the customers seemed to give it the slightest bit of attention. I support carry, and I support Starbucks.
Alice in Wonderland: Billed as something of a sequel to the original story, this actually turned out to be yet another in a long line of rehashes of much the same plot, with much the same characters and outcome (and potentially some ideas stolen from some other rehashes)… but in a delightfully mad and quite enjoyable fashion, especially thanks to the improvements of CGI over the years (though 3Dness is not nearly as required as with Avatar).
So I will freely admit that the video quality is sub-par (which is what happens when I take the video after the sun goes down – duh), and that the audio is not exactly terrific either (which is more a function of the hardware limitations of Better Half’s new toy), but if you want to know what Ford supposedly spent ten million dollars on, here it is (be sure to crank up your speakers, and their bass, if you can control the latter independently):
I tell you what – if Ford could consistently get things as right as they have the Mustang Bullitt, there would be absolutely no doubt as to their future security and solvency.
If I get bored, I might try again later… with light… and with the Flippy-thingy farther away from the exhaust pipe so its microphone does not get over-gained.
The Nissan dealership in town is running a radio ad proclaiming that they have been authorized to accept the trade-in of Toyotas covered by the recall, and to give full-market-value for those vehicles. Good for them. But then they go on to explain how a truck can actually be sent to your home to pick up your Toyota so you will not have to worry about driving your unsafe vehicle to the dealership. In fact, the terms “unsafe”, “dangerous”, and “recalled” are pretty liberally scattered throughout the entire segment.
Of course, this entertaining commercial came at the price of reminding me why I hate terrestrial radio stations – why do they all play their commercial segments at the same time?
So I started doing our taxes this past week, and it turns out that the federal government claims we owe them some money. A lot of money. A lot of money in addition to the monthly wage-garnishments we have already had to suffer from our friendly IRS.
Which leads me back to the idea I may have expressed here before, but will articulate again just for good measure: I would wholly and vocally support a law, up to and including a Constitutional Amendment, dictating that all income taxes can only be paid once a year, in a lump sum. As it is right now, our money disappears into the black hole of the IRS just a little every month, and while we may see the numbers on our 1040s or whatever when we file them, people generally have a difficult time connecting abstract numbers to concrete loss.
However, when people have to consciously and directly deal with the money coming straight out of their bank accounts, in one large lump sum, along with the associated budgeting and preparations necessary for such a transaction, the numbers become a little more real.
Which is why this little pipe dream will never happen. The government has every reason to diminish the impact of taxes on the average payer as much as possible, to the point where the IRS returning your money after you file your taxes is referred to as “getting money back from the government”. Yes, getting your money back from the government – your money that you were forced to give to the government as a zero-interest loan for the past year.
Yes, I said “forced” – if you actually try to do a single-lump-sum payment with the IRS on April 15th, or at least try to hold on to as much as you can for as long as you can, you will be penalized, and every penalty, fine, and, yes, tax from the Federal Government is backed up by the barrel of a gun.
I understand taxes (after all, my college education and first four years of gainful employment were paid for with them), but I do not understand a taxation system like America’s wherein success is penalized, and lack of it (for whatever reason) is rewarded.
And, from the same source, I am not sure if it is the on-paper engineer in me, the repressed artist in me, the military buff in me, or just the fact that it was designed to carry nuclear missiles, but I find things like this way too cool. It is a shame that it has been abandoned to simply waste away…
Do you want to know why the phrase “guns in bars” is a pointless exercise in fearmongering?
As I write this post, I am sitting within about 25 feet of four separate loaded firearms, each with between six and 30 rounds of ammunition already inserted into them, and magazines full of about another 250 rounds within that same radius.
Within that 25-foot bubble, there are also about five gallons of various forms of alcohol, ranging from Two Buck Chuck to sake to a few other things in between.
Finally, I live in an apartment complex (at least for the time being), with the resulting thin walls, really-next-door-neighbors, and high population density.
In short, I could get up from where I am sitting, get so wasted I could hardly stand, and ruin a lot of peoples’ lives – far more than I could if I did the same at a bar. The same is true for every single other firearm-owner in Tennessee who possesses both loaded firearms and alcohol at their habitations.
And, yet, keeping a loaded 1911 and a fifth of Jack in-reach at home is perfectly and 100% legal here in the Patron State of Shooting Things – as it rightfully should be. So why are we not allowed to do the same out in public? How is allowing one, but banning the other, in any way, rational, reasonable, or logical?
Simply put, it is not. Sitting at home, we make the choice to not get smashed and go on a shooting spree – we can, and the massively-overwhelming majority of us will, make the same regardless of where we are.
Even discounting the logical disconnect of “guns and alcohol in the same room at home” is ok, but “guns and alcohol in the same room in public” is ZOMGENDOFTHEWORLD, Tennessee does not even have bars. Guns-in-what, again?
Even though my collection of posts debunking the anti-rights claims of the Commercial Appeal, denouncing their privacy-invading database, and disproving their copy-pasting of erroneous VPC studies is still in existance and has been moved to greener pastures, I have largely given up on addressing the newspaper’s incessant anti-rights overtones, innuendo, and idiocy… for reasons like this:
A man wielding a knife was shot and killed about 3 p.m. Friday in a Family Dollar store parking lot in Frayser.
Just a guy holding a knife, and he was shot and killed? What the hell is up with that? Well, the predictably anti-self-defense Commercial Appeal leaves out a few pertinent details:
Police say a man with a knife raced through the parking lot just after 3:00 p.m.. Witnesses say the man chased a delivery driver and others, but was killed when he tried to lunge his knife at one driver leaving the parking lot. The driver pulled a gun and killed his attacker on the spot.
[...]
Witnesses say two little girls were inside the car when the attacker lunged at the driver.
“He had his two step-daughters in the car with him. So, he really was trying to look out for them when he shot him,” says Brandon Jones, who says the girls appeared to be younger than ten. “Yeah, they saw everything that happened. One of them was real shaken.”
Huh. Well, that certainly changes the tone of the “police report”. Unfortunately, it gets worse – back to the Commercial Appeal’s take on things:
The suspect waited in the parking lot after the shooting until police arrived and took him into custody, according to officers.
Well, yeah, that would make sense – after all, the suspect was full of holes at this point, and probably is not going to be going anywhere any time soon…
Oh. Wait. By “suspect”, the Commercial Appeal means the armed citizen who defended himself and his two small children from a depraved, knife-wielding attacker. So what is he “suspected” of? Nothing.
A young man was patted down and placed in the rear of a squad car. At this point, investigators do not consider this a murder, rather an apparent case of self defense.
As usual, the Commercial Appeal manages to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some “authorized journalists” and media outlets are simply incapable of abandoning their personal bigotry, even for a four-line news blurb. Good job, numbnuts.
Law Abiding Citizen: The main character assuredly did not live up to the title, but if you are interested in a rather disturbing condemnation of the American legal system wherein lines become remarkably blurred, this is probably your movie… as long as you do not mind a not-quite-as-bad-as-No-Country-for-Old-Men-but-close ending to it.
Allowing that public support could be partly defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. It is telling to note Violence Policy Center’s tax returns as far back as the year 2000 have reported $0 in membership dues.The bulk of their money has ALWAYS come from the Joyce Foundation.
An examination of the Joyce Foundation’s 2006-7 financial statement shows no line item for membership dues or individual contributions. Their income is derived from investments: e.g. stocks, bonds, and real estate.
The Violence Policy Center – an organization that cannot even accurately determine if a woman is alive or dead – is nothing more than the sock-puppet of an even larger sock-puppet. Who knew that having that many hands crammed up your arse paid so well? Apart from Josh Sugarmann et al, that is.
If this actually happens, every last member of Congress might as well pack up their bags and head home immediately afterwards, because they just rendered themselves null-and-void in the eyes of the Constitution:
The twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan to bend the rules to ram President Obama’s massive health care legislation through Congress now has a name: the Slaughter Solution.
The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.
First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote.
Emphasis added for the dim-witted in D.C.
Suffice to say, editing the internal-to-Congress rules to “deem” a bill passed, without an actual vote to determine whether or not the bill has been passed, is not Constitutional, and is in direct violation of the design of our country’s government. In fact, for those history-challenged would-be totalitarians on The Hill, I would point out that a very bloody war was waged, and a new country – this country – was founded over politicians deeming laws into existence without due process or proper representation.
I cannot and would not speak for anyone else, but allow me to make myself perfectly clear (and I will try to write in small words so Louise can keep up): I will not obey any law “deemed” as passed. If you want to vote on it, fine. If you want to do your jobs, listen to the American people, and drop this idiotic drive for “health care insurance reform”, fine. But if you “deem” a law as being passed by either House of Congress without the representatives therein actually voting on and passing the law in question (as proscribed by the United States Constitution), I will not obey it, and I am not alone:
“Deem” a single thing as “passed” and I and many others will go broke and into bankruptcy driving you and those who stand with you out of our House of Representatives in order to preserve and restore fidelity to the Constitution within our own government.
Discount this at your peril. For it should not be lost upon you or others that men who have sworn (and likewise performed) that the Constitution of the United States is worth more than any of our individual lives would likewise also hold that it is worth more than our mere monetary treasure, be it modest or great.
Would that you had the same willingness to uphold your oath, Louise… if you even remember it.
I had a couple of skeletons of posts rattling around in my head that I was considering fleshing out and posting today, but then I stumbled across this news report and lost all interest whatsoever.
Robb and Jay G cover the situation far more eloquently than I could ever hope to… and with significantly more-judicious application of four-letter words.
Every day, our country seems to be betraying our forefathers and Founding Fathers just a little bit more… this has to stop.
Lot’s of anti’s here, but the TFA and TGO outnumber them. The anti’s are basically only the plaintiffs (Rayburn) and lawyers in the restaurant carry lawsuit. Also, there are several news cameras here. Cara Kumari from the local NBC affiliate is the only reporter I’ve seen, but she’s generally fair.
Before the meeting started, I had conversations with several sources that say what’s going to happen is that Todd’s bill (3125) is going to be ammended to fix some of the objectionable stuff like mandatory jailtime for carrying in a posted bar, but ONLY if you have a carry permit. If you carried without a permit in that same bar, you’d just get a ticket.
Starting with 3125, Todd speaking. Ammendment makes the bill.
Sontany starts the discussion, displaying a lack of knowledge of the current law, opining that its an undue burden to make places post 1359 signage at every entrance door. Then she moves on to say that we shouldnt be talking about this since its in court. Asks Todd to roll the bill for a week, which he declines.
Dan Haskell, lobbyist for THA. Asks to defer to next week, because of rules on notice. Then says that the scope of the bill is too large. Also, too many signs, specifically for Opryland Hotel. Posting is too confusing. “Let the courts sort this out.”
Todd speaking again. Bill is very clear, and the THA is not going to be happy with any bill, no matter what it says.
Rep Eddie Bass (Committee Member and former sherriff) speaks for the bill. Law enforcement on the ground is for this bill. If a carry permit holder somewhere violates this law, it’ll be on the news for 3 weeks. You can carry in MacDonald’s for the last 15 years and no one cared.
HB 3125 passes and goes to full committee.
Moving on to other bills…
1801 goes to full committee.
1805, 1806, 1807 taken off notice.
1808, 1809 goes to full committee.
2718. Bill as ammended will prevent the UT system from banning all students from legally owning, using, or handling weapons when not at school. Anthony Haynes from UT speaks, says that the Chancellor overreacted. UT will not pursue the actions that this bill is attempting to prevent. Goes to full committee.
2567 goes to full committee.
3712. Taken off notice.
2422. Hardaway’s gun show bill.”It’s only appropriate that I end these gun bills.” Invokes Bloomberg, says there is a gun show loophole. Rolls to next week.
For such a popular, sought-after, and iconic movie prop, there certainly is a shortage of replicas. They are out there, but in dwindling numbers and increasing prices.
The allegations are flying fast and furious around Representative Massa, but, gorram, he paints a horrific picture:
“I’m sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn’t gonna vote for the president’s budget,” Massa said. “Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man? … It’s ridiculous.”
He continued, “By the way, what the heck is he doing in the congressional gym? He goes there to intimidate members of Congress.”
*boggle*
*twitch*
*scrubs brain with bleach*
I cannot say as though the story is true or not (Rahm’s office, of course, denies it), and, as I mentioned, there are all manner of allegations flying around Representative Massa at the moment, so this could be nothing more than a CYA lashing-out… but, wow, what a mental image. At least now Representative Massa can answer the pressing question that has been keeping Americans up at night: is that Rahm’s actual hair color?
We received a letter at our house yesterday indicating that we would be receiving our Census questionnaire packet within the next week or so. It was addressed to “The Residents of… [insert address]“, so that does not really bother me.
What does bother me is that our federal government, in the midst of spending my grandchildren into life-long debt, actually sent out a letter letting me know I would receive another letter in the future.
What?
There are somewhere around 105,000,000 households in America, and while I am sure the government can get a discount on its postage rates (what with owning the postal service), that is still millions upon millions of extraneous letters that were sent out, in addition to the actual, important letter.
Why not save the $20,000,000 or so (assuming half-rate postage costs), and just send out the Census packet? Nah. I guess that would be too… intelligent.
Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — “Some other race” — and writing in “American.” It’s a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, “American” was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.
Seems to me that 400-odd years is a sufficient time for the establishment of a “race” – whatever the hell that word means any more.
Be sure to crank it up to full-HD. And then break out your copy of the original, put it up in a window next to the YouTube clip, and compare how far we have come, and not just in the movie, either…
says it far better than I could: 
based on a 
: Harry Potter set in the loose framework of Greek mythology… only with most of the characters being glaringly ignorant of Greek mythology. 
: Billed as something of a sequel to the original story, this actually turned out to be yet another in a long line of rehashes of much the same plot, with much the same characters and outcome (and potentially some ideas stolen from some 
), but if you want to know what 
: The main character assuredly did not live up to the title, but if you are interested in a rather disturbing condemnation of the American legal system wherein lines become remarkably blurred, this is probably your movie… as long as you do not mind a not-quite-as-bad-as-
-but-close ending to it. 
recent comments