Tag: Law and Disorder

Second Amendment Foundation Continues

After being handed their victory yesterday in McDonald vs. Chicago the Second Amendment Foundation is now moving onto their next target, North Carolina’s Emergency Powers Act:

“Through this lawsuit in North Carolina,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb,” we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.”

Hell yeah! The idea that the state can confiscate your private property, especially you means of self defense when you need it most is appalling. Currently the field is target rich with plenty of unconstitutional gun laws on the books that need to be struck down. It appears as though the Second Amendment Foundation is working fast on striking these laws down.

It’s also good to see a small second amendment group doing something great with their limited resources available. These guys are a group I’m proud to toss money to.

Milk and Oil are the Same Thing

At least according to the EPA who has now classified cow milk as oil because it contains animal fat. Along with this reclassification comes the fact that farmers are now required to create milk spill prevention plans:

“This is an example of where we have overreach by the department that defies common sense,” said Matt Smego, legislative counsel for Michigan Farm Bureau.

Smego said its an unnecessary regulatory burden that creates additional costs. He said it could cost $2,500 for a certified engineer to safeguard milk, plus more to construct secondary containment structures.

Michigan has 2,299 dairy farms. According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture, dairy is the leading segment of Michigan’s agricultural industry, providing a $5.1 billion impact on the state’s economy.

Who would think up something this fucking stupid? Our government. Who would support something this fucking stupid? The Sierra Club:

But Gayle Miller, legislative director of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, said agricultural pollution probably is the nation’s most severe chronic problem when it comes to water pollution.

“Milk is wholesome in a child’s body. It is devastating in a waterway,” Miller said. “The fact that it’s biodegradable is irrelevant if people die as a result of cryptosporidium, beaches close for E. coli and fish are killed.”

My question is this, has such a scenario ever happened? Has a milk spilled filled with harmful bacteria every caused harm to a population? This sounds like a ploy to make life even more difficult for farmers through enacting stupid laws that benefit nobody besides the government (who get to employ more people to enforce these regulations).

Your government at work.

Score One for the Good Guys

News is coming down that the Supreme Court has come out with their decision on McDonald vs. Chicago. The vote was 5-4 for the good guys. The second amendment is now incorporated against the states and city governments meaning gun bans like Chicago’s are now completely unconstitutional and should be going away soon.

The NRA released a statement and the Supreme Court’s opinion has been posted.

I think I speak for everybody with a brain when I say Hell yeah!

Speaking of Violating

The Vatican is shocked, SHOCKED I tell you at the raid the Belgian police recently did. The Belgians decided to investigate these sex abuse reports themselves since it is becoming obvious the Catholic Church isn’t. My favorite quote:

The Vatican has expressed shock at raids, including the “violation” of a cathedral crypt, by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse.

The Belgian police violated the cathedral crypt just like the priest violated the children. ZING!

Execution on the Cheap

I’m sure most of you have guessed I’m against the death penalty simply on the grounds that I don’t believe a government has the right to kill citizens outside of the defense of a human life (in other words the same rules that apply to the citizens apply to the government in my book). But if you’re going to execute somebody at least do it on the cheap.

At 0000 MDT Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by .30 Winchester rifle round to the chest:

Four of the .30 calibre Winchester rifles were loaded with live bullets but a fifth carried a blank, so that none of the men would have known with certainty that he had shot a lethal round.

Gardner was asked if he had any final words and said: “I do not. No.”

He was hooded and strapped to a black metal chair, with a white target pinned to his chest.

Gardner was then shot at a range of 25ft (7.6m).

I have to say I don’t mind this method of execution if we’re going to do it. It’s cheap and effective. Lethal injection requires chemicals that I’m sure are fairly expensive, the electric chair isn’t always reliable, but good old bullets are cheap and reliable. Also this may go down at the best use of Twitter ever:

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff used the Twitter micro-blogging site to say he had given the go-ahead for execution.

“May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims,” Mr Shurtleff tweeted.

That’s right his execution was Tweeted. I wonder if that’s a first.

I’m also not sure if I would call this an execution so much as natural selection:

He was convicted in 1985 of fatally shooting a lawyer during an attempt to escape from a court where he was facing another murder charge dating from 1984.

Real bright buddy. You’re up on murder charges so at the trail you shoot a lawyer and try to escape… from a courtroom most likely to guarded. You’re a smart one aren’t you. I guess I should say you’re were a smart one weren’t you.

But alas this method of execution was deemed too efficient and both in it’s ability to execute the target and in the small cost to the taxpayers:

Gardner, 49, chose the firing squad before Utah banned the method in 2004. Critics say it is barbaric, harking back to the Wild West.

Critics say death by firing squad is barbaric? Really? Wouldn’t it be better to say execution in general is barbaric? I mean between being electrocuted to death, injected with lethal chemicals, or shot I’d rather be shot. But the bottom line is killing somebody outside of self defense is a barbaric act. Changing the method of execution doesn’t all of the sudden make it all rainbows and unicorns.

Hiring Hackers

I found another good post by Bruce Schneier. This one deals with hiring people with previous criminal histories. More or less Mr. Schneier brings up the fact stating your won’t hire people with a previous criminal history is short sighted and rather ignorant:

The answer, of course, is “it depends.” It depends on the specifics of the crime. It depends on the ethics involved. It depends on the recidivism rate of the type of criminal. It depends a whole lot on the individual.

Then he goes further into the idea of hiring convicted malicious hackers:

Admittedly, there’s a difference between thinking like an attacker and acting like a criminal, and between researching vulnerabilities in fielded systems and exploiting those vulnerabilities for personal gain. But there is a huge variability in computer crime convictions, and — at least in the early days — many hacking convictions were unjust and unfair. And there’s also a difference between someone’s behavior as a teenager and his behavior later in life. Additionally, there might very well be a difference between someone’s behavior before and after a hacking conviction. It all depends on the person.

This is ultimately the key when hiring anybody. Having a criminal history shouldn’t be an instant disqualifies for a job. It all depends on such variables as what the crime was, when the crime was done, what has changed about the person since they committed the crime, etc. Many people with previous criminal backgrounds have very useful skills. It makes sense to hire a person who was convicted of bank robbery to review your bank’s security. The person obviously understands bank security and how to bypass it. Of course it still depends on his character and whether or not he’ll try to rob your bank later. Still he’ll have the hands on experience which is more valuable than theory and book knowledge.

There is also another paragraph that I found very interesting due to previous posts I’ve made about felons on the right to keep and bear arms:

Last winter, a Minneapolis attorney who works to get felons a fair shake after they served their time told of a sign he saw: “Snow shovelers wanted. Felons need not apply.” It’s not good for society if felons who have served their time can’t even get jobs shoveling snow.

The ostracization of people with felonies is out of hand in this country. Somebody who served their time shouldn’t have a problem getting a job again. As I’ve mentioned before if a criminal is still considered a danger to society that person shouldn’t be free to roam the streets. Likewise whether you hire a felon should be based on what the felony was. As I’ve mentioned before just because somebody has a felony doesn’t mean they were a violent criminal.

So having a blanket statement saying you will not hire people with criminal histories puts you and your company at a disadvantage. Sure you will run a slightly smaller risk of having a potential offender in your company but you’ll also not be able to hire some of the best people out there.

Civil Disobedience

Is awesome! Somebody in Tennessee received a $90.00 speeding ticket and was none too happy about it. Being a savvy Internet type he also saw that the issuing police department’s domain name was about to expire so he purchased it and put up his own website detesting the victim-less crimes of traffic violations.

Good on you sir.

A hat tip goes to Uncle this post.

So a Police Officer Walks Into A Bar

Or in this case a cafe and is given the boot. This incident has been strumming up some controversy in some areas because a coffee shop booted a police officer out of their establishment. What few people seem to realize is the coffee house is called the Red and Black Cafe. Why is that significant? The colors represent anarcho-communism which is the political belief of the people who collectively own the cafe.

So the real story is a police officer walked into a cafe run by people who don’t like the police of any form of government at all. I’m not surprised he was shown the door in that case. What do I think about this? Well it’s their right to refuse service to anybody they want (in my opinion, not under the law’s opinion of course). If they don’t want to allow police officers into their establishment that is their right. At the same time the police are not legally obligated to protect anybody so since they are restricted from entering the business they could just as easily say they will not respond to any incidents that occur in that cafe. I think it’s a fair trade that would make everybody involved happy.

Making Recording the Police Illegal

There is a rather frightening article about the police and their love of cameras, so long as they’re the only ones who have them:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

More or less the same group of individuals who often say nobody should fear being under surveillance unless they’re doing something wrong doesn’t like being under surveillance. This seems to imply they know they are doing something wrong using their logic. The justification for these laws is also sickening:

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

If you or I are out in public we can’t sue somebody for recording us specifically because there is no expectation of privacy under the law. Apparently since the police are better than us lowly surfs they are getting an exception in some states. This is a classic case of rules being applied differently depending on your status (in this case a police officer is a civilian but since they’re employees of the government the government is giving them special treatment). Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying all police officers are beating people on street corners but any officer supporting laws banning citizens from recording their actions while on duty makes it appear as though they have something to hide (by many officers’ own logic).

Society and technology are now at a point where a majority of people are carrying video recording devices in the form of cell phones. Coupled with the cellular Internet access we can share recorded videos with the entire world instantly. Even if the police confiscate your cell phone upon discovering you are recording them the video can already be uploaded to any number of websites making the confiscation meaningless.

This has been used quite a few times to record instances of police abuse which is later used to reprimand the recorded officers. So now the citizens can monitor the police force instead of only the police force being able to monitor the citizens. Some people join the police force because they want the authority and power that goes along with it. Of course these same people don’t want to responsibility and accountability that also goes along with it hence empowered citizens are a bad thing to them.

Banning the recording of police officers (or any public servant) while they are on duty is nothing more than government empowerment at the sacrifice of the peoples’ liberty (which is always the case). It’s one of the few methods we have at our disposal to play checks and balances with the police force. Otherwise it simply becomes a case of our word against theirs which almost always goes the way of the officer under question.

Inexperience and Government

Yesterday I posted a good article that related to Minnesota’s own “gun show loophole” that isn’t a loophole. Something has been eating at me about that article, namely this:

Paymar has never fired a handgun, nor has he ever attended a gun show. He was moved to act, he says, after seeing a YouTube clip. In it, Colin Goddard, a Virginia Tech massacre survivor who was shot four times, attends gun shows and successfully buys firearms without undergoing a background check or even being asked to show identification.

I touched on it briefly in yesterday’s post but it’s something that has bugged me about government forever. Why do we find it acceptable to allow people with no knowledge or experience in a field to legislate that field? Paymar isn’t the only example. Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens we put in charge of Internet regulation even though he obviously had no knowledge in the field.

This seems to be a common thing with government. We find the most incompetent people and let them be in charge of something. This kind of incompetence doesn’t fly anywhere else but government (normally). Generally if you’re put in charge of something at a company it’s because you portrayed some kind of competence in the area of concern. If you’re not competent you are eventually fired.

But here Paymar has never been to a gun show in his life yet he feels justified in creating legislation that would affect gun shows. Now his bill was shot down in committee thankfully but he’s vowed to reintroduce the bill at a later time. This raises the question, what the Hell is he thinking? He can’t claim it’s to get voter favor since the bill doesn’t seem to have much traction here in Minnesota. The only people who really seem to care are us pro-gunners and the anti-gunners who generally don’t know what they’re talking about.

We shouldn’t stand for this. Instead we should demand that in order to legislate something the person writing the law much either have direct experience with the topic or have hired independent consultants who have said experience.