Month: July 2011

Being Punished for Good Intentions

There are times when good intentions go awry and somebody is harmed or their property is damaged. In such cases I understand that the person doing the harm should have to pay reparations to the person they harmed but I see no reason why a person with good intentions that harmed nobody should be punished. Sadly the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) doesn’t see it that way and are looking to nail a man who was basically being nice:

Christian Lopez, 23, caught the ball and promptly handed it over to the Yankees without demanding any kind of payment, the Daily News reported. The Yankees rewarded him with suite seats for the rest of the season, plus a heap of autographed team memorabilia.

Mr. Lopez seems like a nice guy. He caught a baseball that is likely worth a lot of money to collectors and returned it to the team while asking for no payment in return. The team, being good hearted people whose livelihood is based on having happy fans, decided to reward Mr. Lopez for his nice act by giving him a lot of free stuff. Well the IRS sees all that free stuff as taxable income and are chomping at the bit to rend money from Mr. Lopez in the form of income tax:

That’s what could cost Lopez. According to The New York Times, the total value of the seats and loot could exceed $120,000. The IRS would consider that to be taxable income, several accountants told both newspapers.

Assholes. I also dislike how the author of this article refers to the stuff given to Mr. Lopez as loot. Loot implies that the goods were ill gotten. What the IRS are trying to get is loot as they’re trying to use force to steal money from Mr. Lopez. What Mr. Lopez received were goods given voluntarily by the team for an act that he did charitably.

This could end up in a court battle as items rules as gifts are non-taxable and what the team gave Mr. Lopez could be considered nothing but a gift (as he demanded no payment for returning the ball I don’t see how the team giving Mr. Lopez something could be anything else but a gift). Of course it will cost Mr. Lopez money to pay or fight the taxes so his only available option may to be refuse the gifts given to him. Isn’t it great when the government swoops in to punish those who do an act of charity? As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

It Shouldn’t Cost Anything to Fight a Ticket

Let’s get something straight, speeding tickets are issued because going faster than an arbitrarily selected speed is dangerous, they’re issued because speeding tickets are sources of profit. Actually this is true of almost every type of fine and citation that the government issues and that’s why they try to make it as difficult as possible to fight.

Take a look at Northampton, Massachusetts; it costs $319.90 to fight a ticket:

Vincent Gillespie said the $319.90 cost of appealing his July 19, 2005, parking ticket in Hampshire Superior Court far exceeded the $15 fine.

[…]

Because Northampton’s system did not include the option of appearing before a hearing officer, as it does now, Gillespie filed for summary judgment in Hampshire Superior Court, saying he was denied his rights. Judge Bertha D. Josephson found in his favor, but ruled in the city’s favor on Gillespie’s Constitutional argument that the fee system effectively denied him access to the courts.

A common complain when you mention privatized courts is that those without means won’t be able to receive justice as they couldn’t afford going to court. To that I ask, what’s the difference between private and public courts? As it currently sits many courts require you to pay a large fee, much larger than most citations issued by the government, in order to fight a citation. This is by design though, the government just wants your money and in order to get it they’re making it difficult for you to contest their decision to write you a citation.

I received a parking ticket in St. Paul last winter for $35.00. My options were to go before a hearings officer who would then determine whether or not I had a valid reason to contest the ticket. If he didn’t agree my reason was valid the cost of going to court was something akin to $100.00 (plus all the time I’d have to take off of work, gas to get there, etc.). Having the option of going before a hearings officer is also malarkey because the government shouldn’t be in charge of determining whether your grievance with the government is valid. Anytime a grievance occurs a neutral third-party should be used to judge whether a grievance is valid or not. After all, if you had a grievance against Ford you wouldn’t go to an employee of Ford to determine the validity of your grievance.

In summary the cost of fighting a citation is purposely set to prevent people from fighting them. The government wants your money and they want to get it with the least amount of hassle possible. If you fight it they have to utilize their resources (which you pay for, so you’re effectively paying them to fight you as well) which requires work and as we know government goons are adverse to work.

As people living in a supposedly free society we should demand that the government hears our grievances with them at no additional expense to ourselves. We already pay for the government, we pay them to write us citations, we pay them to run the court, we pay for the paper citations are written on, we pay for the whole damned thing. Since we’re already paying for a whole system we shouldn’t be required to pay more when we believe the system that we pay for has wronged us in some way.

Protecting Us From Unlicensed Lemonade Stands

I’m starting to believe our country lacks any markets where the government hasn’t stabbed its tentacles of taxes and regulations into. Even children can’t run a lemonade stand proper licensing:

Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn’t have a business license or the required permits.

[…]

The girls needed a business license, peddler’s permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per year.

How is it that we as a society find this type of behavior from our government acceptable? Why should children be required to buy a $50.00 a day permit to run a fucking lemonade stand where they’re probably selling their product for something akin to $0.50 a cup? At that price they would have to sell 100 cups of lemonade just to break even.

This situation is a perfect example of what happens on larger scales in other industries. Part of the reason it costs so much to do business in the United States is because so many permits, licenses, and regulations must be complied with. Complying with all of the government’s malarkey costs a lot of money and that costs has to be forwarded to the consumer.

These regulations are getting a bit ridiculous though when we start applying them to children. Then again it’s a good life lesson for them, they can learn that going into business is a huge pain in the ass because the government will try to siphon off much of their business’s wealth and success as possible.

CSGV Financials Aren’t Looking So Hot

Those of us in the gun community have been railing on the Coalition to Stop Gun ownership Violence (CSVG) for a while because they’ve been making some outrageous posts about gun owners. Hell some of their statements were bad enough that Twitter pulled their account for a while. Needless to say it brings joy to my heard to see their not doing so well financially:

The good news is that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is continuing to hemorrhage money. The bad news is that CSGV has shifted almost all of their operations into their 501(c)(3), the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. This trend is following all gun control organizations that we’ve been tracking. I say bad news only because I’d prefer all of them having to file for unemployment, but when it comes to political reality, it’s good news. So what are the trends?

CSGV continues to lose money. In 2008, they took in $224,887, and in 2009, they took in $207,066. At the same time, CSGV increased their program expenses from $94,426 in 2008, to $110,061 in 2010. As a result of that, CSGV’s net assets dropped from $21,706 in 2008 to $14,335. No one has technically been on payroll at CSGV since 2007, and that was when they were paying Michael Beard $35,306 to act as Secretary of the organization. In fact, even going back to 2004, Beard has essentially been the only person making any money off CSGV.

It’s nice to see lying can only get you money for so long (unless you’re the government, but they get to take it by force).

Things That Don’t Concern Us

I’ve never understood the desire of our politicians to involve the people and resources of this country in things that don’t concern us in the slightest. Libya is a perfect example, out of the blue we decided that Gaddafi was the so horrible that the United States had to start hurtling expensive missiles into the country. Now Hillary Clinton came on and said the United States has declared the Libyan rebels the legitimate government of their country:

The United States has recognised the Libyan opposition as the country’s “legitimate governing authority”.

That means billions of dollars of Libyan assets frozen in US banks could be released to the rebels.

First of all what right do we have to declare who is and isn’t the “legitimate” government of a country? We aren’t Libya and Libya has done nothing to provoke us yet we’re not declaring that the rebels are the legitimate government of Libya because we fucking say so.

I wonder what sweetheart deal we’ve made with the Libyan rebels. Do we have some kind of agreement with them that they’ll give use cheap oil once they are running the country? We obviously aren’t there for humanitarian reasons because if that’s what the United States was all about we’d be bombing the Hell out of Syria and Darfur. The United States government may claim humanitarian reasons for bombing Libya but that justification doesn’t hold water since there are other countries where far worse things are happening to civilian populations.

Maybe Gaddafi just holds enough wealth that we wanted to get it. It would make sense to make some excuse to freeze Gaddafi’s assets, claim some organization we can’t control is the legitimate government of Libya, then charge the rebels for our expenses in helping them which would involve transferring Gaddafi’s assets to United States coffers. The guy does have a shit ton of gold after all.

If the story about Gaddafi’s gold holdings is using metric tons (I’m not sure if a tonne is metric or if it’s a long ton) then Gaddafi holds 5,044,176.5517 ounces of gold. The price of gold as of this writing is $1588.57 and ounce meaning Gaddafi’s gold fortune is worth $8,013,027,544.734069. Fuck! In the terms of our debt that’s very small potatoes but combining that with Libya’s oil holdings would paint a rather sinister picture of why we’re there.

Personally if the United States government feels the need to steal money from my in the form of taxes I would like it if they would stop using so much of that money on bombing foreign countries.

Is Your Glock Not Big Enough

Is your Glock simply too small? Do you want a larger more unwieldy gun? If so Command Arms Accessories has you covered with their RONI conversion kit:

The $350 kit allows two handed operation of the Glock, one hand on the pistol grip and one hand on the fore end, as well as a better mounting platform for optics on its 9.4″ picatinny rail.

So why would you want to make your compact handgun into a much bulkier handgun? For fun is the only good reason I can give. Unlike the RONI Carbine Kit, the RONI Recon does not turn the pistol into a Short Barrel Rifle and therefor is not subject to NFA rules and taxes.

In my book “just for gun” is a perfectly valid excuse to purchase a firearm or firearm accessory. I will admit that the conversion kit would be fun simply because it makes a standard Glock look like something from a science fiction movie (which always seem to believe small arms will become much bulkier in the future). It’s a completely ridiculous accessory and if it were much cheaper I’d probably get one for the sci-fi pew pew feel.

It should be noted that the RONI also has two side mounted Picatinny rails and one underneath the gun meaning you could mount three laser sights to it and get that whole Predator laser aiming affect. Or you know, go more practical by mounting three pistol bayonets to it.

Amendment to Defund Required Reporting of Multiple Long-Gun Sales

It appears as through some of our “representatives” have decided that the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) scheme to force firearm retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple long-gun sales isn’t a good idea. An amendment to the 2012 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill has been added that would defund the illegal scheme:

Today, during consideration of the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, pro-gun U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for a new and unauthorized multiple sales reporting plan proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Amendment was passed by a vote of 25-16.

The Rehberg Amendment, which was strongly supported by NRA, will defund the Justice Department’s controversial and illegal move requiring federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.

As the National Rifle Association (NRA) points out, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have no legitimate claim to demanding multiple long-gun sales be reported:

It is important to note that under existing law, BATFE already has full access to every dealer’s firearm transaction records, either during a bona fide criminal investigation or simply to enforce compliance with record keeping requirements. This new reporting procedure would create a registry of owners of many of today’s most popular rifles–firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes. Most importantly, however, the BATFE has no legal authority to demand these reports.

They can already access firearms dealer records at will so why do dealers need to further report on their customers? The fact of the matter is the ATF was the organization that allowed guns to cross the border into Mexico. Many firearms dealers pleaded with the ATF to allow them to deny sales that appeared to the dealers suspicious but their pleading was met with a demand to permit the sale. Abolishing the ATF is the only correct response to “Operation Fast and Furious” as they were the culprits that allowed guns to illegal cross the American-Mexican border.

Then again this is par for the government’s course; they fuck up and then blame innocent bystanders.

Another Operation to Smuggle Guns Into Central America Possibly Uncovered

The isn’t even beginning to settle for “Operation Fast and Furious” and now another plan that may have resulted in guns being smuggled from the United States into Central America has been uncovered. “Representative” Gus Bilirakis has inquired with Attorney General Eric Holder on whether or not “Operation Castaway” may have resulted in guns being allowed to cross into Honduras:

Bilirakis expressed concern about reports that the strategy “may not have been limited to weapons trafficking to Mexico.”

He asked Holder and Melson whether “similar programs included the possible trafficking of arms to dangerous criminal gangs in Honduras with the knowledge of the ATF’s Tampa Field Division” and a Justice Department office, via Castaway.

Bilirakis’ letter specifically asked whether the Tampa division participated in a “gun walking” scheme allowing guns to go to Honduras. He also asked whether ATF or DOJ know if any of the firearms ended up in the hands of the “notorious” MS-13 gang — a violent gang spread across Central America, Mexico and the United States.

Obviously the Department of Justice (DoJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are denying that Castaway has any similarities to Fast and Furious but I found something interesting to note:

The lengthy court document states that the ATF noticed Crumpler’s numerous purchases in a national firearms database — it turned out he was later selling them at gun shows. According to the plea agreement, the ATF had an undercover agent buy from Crumpler and later observed the suspect at several gun shows in late 2009, selling to numerous buyers without a license. At one point, he told an undercover agent that he knew the firearms were making their way to Honduras.

Emphasis mine. I wonder what national database they’re talking about. According to United States law all records pertaining to National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks must be destroyed if the person buying passes. This leads me to question what kind of information the federal government is maintaining on firearm purchases and how legal that information is under federal law (not that the federal government gives who shits about what is legal).

What will be interesting is whether or not the ATF allowed guns falling under the scope of Castaway to knowingly enter Honduras. Catching the ATF red-handed in two illegal operations certainly wouldn’t reflect highly on their agency.

Montana Man to Take On Federal Gun Regulations

Montana was the first state to pass a Firearms Freedom Act. What the Firearms Freedom Act does is exempt any gun manufactured, sold, and used exclusively in one state from federal firearm regulations. The federal government claims the ability to regulate firearms comes from their ability to regulate interstate commerce, but if no business ever crosses state lines then the federal government’s excuse for firearm regulations doesn’t apply. Unfortunately nobody has been willing to use one of these laws to go head to head against the federal government, until now:

With a homemade .22-caliber rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo, Gary Marbut dreams of taking down the federal regulatory state.

He’s not planning to fire his gun. Instead, he wants to sell it, free from federal laws requiring him to record transactions, pay license fees and open his business to government inspectors.

For years, Mr. Marbut argued that a wide range of federal laws, not just gun regulations, should be invalid because they were based on an erroneous interpretation of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. In his corner were a handful of conservative lawyers and academics. Now, with the rise of the tea-party movement, the self-employed shooting-range supplier finds himself leading a movement.

Ignore the whole tea party movement comment, this has nothing to do with the tea party movement and everything to do with basic common sense any person living in America should be able to understand. If all business relating to an item stays within the borders of a state then no interstate commerce occurs and the federal government has no legitimate claim to regulating that item.

Mr. Marbut is manufacturing his own brand of .22 rifles in Montana. According to the Firearms Freedom Act any firearm falling under the legislation must be marked to indicate that the firearm is for exclusive use in the state it was manufactured.

Although I’m doubting Mr. Marbut will win (after all if the case gets to the Supreme Court they will likely rule in favor of the federal government as they are an arm of the federal government) but I’m hoping to be wrong. I’m glad somebody has finally come forth and called the federal government on their shenanigans and overreach by abusing the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.