Tag: Law and Disorder

I Know Mayor Daley is Dumb But… Wow

So an 80 year-old man banished a demon back to Hell with a firearm. Of course most of us cheer the fact that the elderly man was able to have a mechanism of self defense at hand and thus preserve his life. Unfortunately this happened in Chicago and a handgun was used thus making what the elderly man did illegal. Apparently Sir Sodomy isn’t saying if the 80 year-old man will be charged but chances are he will.

But one of the quotes made by Sir Sodomy really stuck up at fucking stupid:

“I think everybody understands the frustration that people have in regards to guns, and that’s an instance, and I think we understand that,” Daley said. “But again, the access to guns in America, the access today is higher today than at any period of time in America.”

Wow. Access to guns is higher today than any period of our history? Really? Access generally means your ability to obtain something. You have access to a car if you are able to get a car to drive. Access in America today is not at it’s highest in our history.

In the past Americans could purchase any firearm they wanted. During the Civil War many people owned private cannons which were the artillery pieces of the day (for those morons who claim the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks). Before the passing of the National Firearms Act any American could legally go into a store and purchase a machine gun, short barreled rifle, or short barreled shotgun without paying any BATFE transfer tax. Now thanks to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act we can’t legally transfer any machine gun made after May 19, 1986. In order to purchase a firearm you need to go through an instant background check. No ammunition considered by the BATFE to be “armor piercing” can be imported into the country. Hell no gun not approved by the BATFE can be imported into the country. So tell me again how access to firearms in this country is at an all time high.

Man Chicago really needs a new mayor. Their current one is a complete dumb ass.

New BATFE Abuse of Power

The BATFE sure likes their power to change the meaning behind laws at a whim. Uncle reports they’re doing it again by mucking about with the mechanism businesses ship firearms:

Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.

Man I wish I had the power to change the rules whenever I felt it convenient. So why are they doing this? Obviously isn’t because many gun transferred for bona fide business purposes have been turning up in crimes. Oh wait:

ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF’s rulings was used in a crime.

So the real reason is simply, “Because we can.” And people seem to think government agencies are benevolent and good.

We’re Not Happy Until Everybody is Watched

As it sits right now if you want a cellular phone without having to be on a list (the phone company’s subscriber list in this case) the only way to go is pre-paid. In this case you walk into a store, grab a pre-paid cell phone, and pay for it using cash (it’s that funny green colored paper for those of you who only know how to pay for things using plastic cards). A couple of senators have decided that any means of avoiding the government knowing what you’re doing is a bad thing.

Senators Charles Schumer and John Cornyn have introduced legislation that would require people buying pre-paid cell phones to show identification and be recorded. For a quote from the stupid:

“This proposal is overdue because for years, terrorists, drug kingpins and gang members have stayed one step ahead of the law by using prepaid phones that are hard to trace,” Schumer said.

So now what? They’ll have to go back to either using phone booths or stolen cell phones? Face it this law won’t change anything, criminals are always one step ahead of the authorities. Oh but best of all:

Faisal Shahzad, the 30-year-old suspect in the Times Square plot, allegedly used a prepaid cellphone to arrange the purchase of a Nissan Pathfinder that he attempted to turn into a car bomb, the senators noted.

Wait a minutes doesn’t a car require tax, title, and license? That generally means you have to register it with the state. So how exactly would having a law preventing people from buying pre-paid cell phones without identification help? Oh that’s right it wouldn’t.

Let’s hear some concerns from the people who actually think things through:

Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society. “They remain important for whistleblowers, battered spouses, reporters’ sources,” said James X. Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology. And yet, he said, the space for such anonymous or pseudonymous communications has been narrowed. Pay phones, for example, have largely disappeared.

Pre-paid cell phones obtained with cash are also useful to those who want to keep the government out of their business.

Thankfully there currently is no similar bill in the House. But I’m sure that will change in about two days since this is needed to “fight the terrorists” (terrorists being anybody who doesn’t step into line with the government).

You Really Can’t Cure Stupid

It appears one of Sea Sheppard’s little nitwits is on trial in Japan. Peter Bethune was the former captain of the super high-tech speed boat Ady Gil before he parked it in front of a massive moving harpoon ship thinking the laws of physics could break for his righteous crusade (they didn’t). Well being one to blame other people for his fuck up he decided it would be a good idea to board the harpoon ship (after he was able to get a jet ski, it appears even Sea Sheppard wasn’t dumb enough to give this guy another expensive boat) to make a citizen’s arrest of the captain.

So what happens when one man illegal boards another vessel full of rightfully angry people? He gets arrested himself and sent to Tokyo for trail (he’s lucky if it were a Russian ship they would have probably dropped him in the middle of the sea on an inflatable dingy):

He pleaded guilty to four charges, including trespass and obstructing commercial activities, but denied a fifth charge of assault.

If convicted he could receive a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

Pro tip: don’t trespass on other peoples’ property. Illegally boarding the Japanese whaling vessel is akin to breaking into somebody’s home. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like what they are doing. If somebody doesn’t like the fact I own firearms they can’t break into my home and try to place me under citizen’s arrest.

Even More on Arizona’s Illegal Immigrant Law

A while back a certain state passed a certain law that was really unpopular. I expressed my worries about the wording of the law as well. My main beef was the fact the bill simple stated:

OR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

I feel that wording is poorly chosen as “lawful contact” could mean any number of things. Well I’ve been doing a little more digging into this law and found out that Arizona’s House actually corrected the wording in their HB 2162:

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

I don’t know why I didn’t find this earlier but I can see why it was never really reported by the big media companies. This rewording pretty much takes care of my biggest gripe with this law. It does seem reasonable to check a person’s immigration status upon enforcement of other laws being background checks are usually run anyways.

There is still the potential issue of an officer pulling a person over solely to check their immigration status by making up some phony bull shit about a light being out but that threat exists for every law on the books. But I will openly admit I was wrong here and should have done more research at the time of writing about my issues with the law.

More Bad Ideas from New York

Seriously that state is fast becoming the bad idea capital of the Union. Tam found another bad idea brewing the in the state mostly run by a single city. Meet the “minimum force” bill:

Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.

Which is how it should be done. You aim for the largest target that also house organs which the human body stops without. It’s pretty much a win-win area to target. Well that makes too much sense so:

This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone’s hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm.

So this legislation would require the police to do the impossible (shoot a gun out of the criminal’s hands) or aim for very small targets that, when hit, won’t incapacitate the criminal in most cases. I’m all for restricting police powers and limiting the use of deadly force to when it’s needed. With that said the gun generally comes out when deadly force is needed and when it’s needed it’s needed. If a criminal is endangering the life of another the quickest way to stop the situation should be taken which is almost always shooting the punk until he stops. A punk will stop a whole lot faster if bullets enter critical areas like the head or chest as opposed to limbs which the human body can very well survive without.

The Dilemma of a Chicago Police Superintendent

Life must be hard for the Police Superintendent of Chicago. You have a gun ban in place to prevent slaves citizens from purchasing handguns and severely restricting the purchase of all other guns. Yet your city has the most shootings. What’s a man to do? Most people would just come out and say the gun ban probably isn’t working so hot and admit they were wrong. But as Every Day, No Days Off points out Police Superintendent Jody Weis has another plan:

He’s creating a new category of “indoor” homicides — and downplaying what police can do about them..

“Those homicides that are outdoors — the ones that I do believe we have a good possibility of preventing — we’re around 98 homicides for Chicago outdoors. That’s as low as it’s ever been, except for 2007, when I believe we had 97 homicides outdoors as of this date,” he said.

98 homicides is considered low? Really? Because according to the FBI Unified Crime Report for 2008 (which Illinois’s statistics are footnoted due to the fact they don’t report in compliance with the FBI Unified Crime Report) Vermont which allows anybody legally capable of owning a gun to carry it around on their person sans any permits only had 17 murders in that year. Hell my home stat of Minnesota only had 106 total for the entire year. Chicago on the other hand has practically passed my state’s yearly total in five months without including the number of shootings that occur indoors!

So even implementing this shitty idea makes Chicago look like a violent Hell hole.

I Don’t Like this One Bit

Joe Huffman brings up a scary decision that just made it’s way out of the Supreme Court. The case that was just decided pretty much gives the government power to incarserate you indefinably. Of course this case involved a sex offender which is why speaking against the ruling will automatically get you hatred from your peers but alas I could care less so here we go:

In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

Yes that’s right even though you’ve completed your sentence handed down by a judge after conviction by a jury the federal government can chose to extend your punishment after the fact. The very scary part here is the fact the extension of punishment doesn’t even have to pass muster with a jury but only a judge:

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

We all know phrases like “beyond a reasonable double” and “clear and convincing” translate into “whatever the fuck we want” when spoken by the federal government so neither of those two clauses fill me with confidence. Likewise a single judge could very well decide that you stay in jail for life even if you were only sentenced to 10 years.

So now we come to the big problem what to do with people in prison whom are still deemed a potential threat to society? In essence in order to keep such a person in prison we have to give up some of our liberty to the government. I’m a big believer in Benjamin Franklin’s quote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally I don’t believe the risk of losing any liberty could possibly outweigh the potential danger of releasing a prisoner even if they are dangerous.

Of course I’m not one to just complain without offering some kind of potential solution so here it is. If a person is charged with a sex offense (a real one not a bullshit one like taking a piss in public) make part of the punishment committing the offender to a mental facility where he or she can receive treatment and can not be let loose until a psychological evaluation has been passed (and by passed I mean judged by a board of psychologists chosen in a similar manner to a jury not a single doctor). Obviously it’s not a perfect solution but it would offer two things: a method of ensuring a dangerous person is not released into society and the said dangerous person can get treatment for their problem which simply imprisoning them doesn’t accomplish.

But simply stating somebody is a possible danger to society and keeping them locked up indefinably even though that goes beyond the handed down punishment is a violation of essential liberties. This type of power is far too dangerous to hand to the federal government, an entity that has proven itself time and time again they don’t give a shit about your rights.

Those of You in California

You guys better get your butts in gear. Through the NRA-ILA I just found out that AB 1934 just passed committee. AB 1934, if passed, will ban open carrying of unloaded handguns in the communist state of California.

It doesn’t surprise me that the bill is positively huge considering the only thing it’s supposed to accomplish is a ban on the open carrying of unloaded firearms.

This is normally where I’d say get on the horn with your representatives. Seeing as how that didn’t work so well when AB 962 was going through the political pipework I’m not sure what to say. I guess it’s still worth a try. But find out every representative who supports this bill and make sure they get voted out in November.

The Dangers of Legislating Behavior

Jay over at MArooned sums up why it’s dangerous to allow our politicians to legislate any behavior:

That’s the whole thing. It never ends. Once we let them dictate one behavior, there’s no stopping those who would use the power of the state, the men with guns, to force the people to bend to their whims and wants. Today cell phones, tomorrow iPods, next week it’s passengers and heating choices.

It’s a slippery slope. Once you’re sliding down the slope it’s practically impossible to stop until you hit the bottom. In this case Jay was talking about calls to ban all cellular phone use while driving because it’s said to distract drivers. As he pointed out the logical conclusion is to ban passengers since they provide distractions as well.

This logic can be applied to anything. For instance when our government regulated the ownership of machines gun and other such “scary” guns via the National Firearms Act is started us down a slippery slop. Now thanks for the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act the transfer of machine guns produced after an arbitrary date to civilian hands is completely illegal.

This should be kept in mind whenever legislation regulating what can be posted on the Internet comes up. Sure first they will say they need to protect the children but it will not stop until everything that isn’t government approved is banned (think China).

Once you allow the state to be your nanny there is no escaping the nanny state.