Tag: Law and Disorder

Who Watches The Watchmen

Some hilarity was pointed out over a Bruce Schneier’s blog. Apparently the number of Federal Air Marshals that have been arrested is greater than the number of arrests made by Federal Air Marshals (the link goes to a Tennessee congressman’s website, I don’t know who he is nor should this be taken as my promoting him):

And listen to this paragraph from a front-page story in the USA Today last November: “Since 9/11, more than three dozen Federal air marshals have been charged with crimes, and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct. Cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding a human-trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from Afghanistan.”

Actually, there have been many more arrests of Federal air marshals than that story reported, quite a few for felony offenses. In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.

We now have approximately 4,000 in the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet they have made an average of just 4.2 arrests a year since 2001. This comes out to an average of about one arrest a year per 1,000 employees.

That’s just funny. This on the other hand isn’t:

Now, let me make that clear. Their thousands of employees are not making one arrest per year each. They are averaging slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. Let me repeat that: we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest.

That’s your tax money at work ladies and gentlemen. The scariest part about government is the fact that there is no accountability. If they’re spending far more money than they take in that’s just too bad. If their agents who are tasked with upholding the law are corrupt that’s just too bad. We either have to wait for the government to take care of their own corrupt personnel or… never mind there is no or here.

Apparently The UN Believes It’s The ATF

Snowflakes in Hell brings a story that is rather interesting. Yesterday the National Shooting Sports Foundation posted a news item brining to light that the United Nations is filing firearm trace requests. They posted a trace request originating from the United Nations [Be forewarned it’s a PDF document].

This is troubling because of two facts. First of all the United Nations is all for disarming civilian populations. That shouldn’t be a surprise when you stop to realize the United Nations is composed of multiple world governments, most of which either severely restrict or outright ban civilians from owning firearms. Second the United Nations apparently believe they have the same authority in this country as the ATF.

The trace request is for a H&K P7 that the French apparently found (more likely surrendered). What’s funny is the request states the company should cooperate due to a United Nations resolution. These resolutions are binding to signing government bodies not the civilian population. That means if the United Nations wants a trace performed they need to go to our federal government not the private company that manufactures the pistol. I hope H&K decides the UN sucks and that H&K hates them. The United Nations is the last organization we want to give an inch to because they’ll take at least a light year.

Damned Kids

Another story found via Dvorak Uncensored. Apparently 10 year-old kids are a lot tougher than I thought:

The release said that the officers, trying to prevent the child from hurting other children, staff members and himself, slapped the boy and then used a Taser to subdue him.

It’s a good thing they had that Taser otherwise somebody could have gotten hurt!

I Hate the TSA as Much as Anybody But Come On

OK I hate the TSA just as much as everybody else, possibly more. But after seeing a story on Dvorak Uncensored I have to call bullshit. Let’s see if you can find what’s wrong with this story. The story is titled, “Child rape charge rocks TSA.” Here is the story opener:

A Transportation Security Agency worker who pats down members of the flying public was charged with multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl yesterday.

The bust outraged privacy and passenger advocates who say it justifies their fears about Logan International Airport’s full-body scanner.

So what do you think happened? If you answered the TSA agent used his authority to take a child to the back interrogation room and raped the child you would be completely incorrect. Here is what happened (Buried towards the end of the article):

The 14-year-old victim watched a movie at his house, Okeeffe said. She said during the film, he massaged the victim’s thigh and touched her under a blanket, then during the February school vacation the girl stayed at his house with his daughter.

So what’s the point of this article? The huge majority of the article makes a big fuss about the fact that the TSA have naked body scanners attended by agents. It makes a huge fuss about one of these TSA agents being a pedophile. But the fact the perpetrator was a TSA agent is COMPLETELY irrelevant here since everything he did was done at HIS house not the airport. At no point was any evidence brought forth stating he made initial contact with the child at the airport or through his “authority” as a TSA agent. In fact the kid was apparently friends with his daughter. Yes instead of focusing on the crime it’s made into a hit piece about the TSA.

I hate the TSA with a passion. The entire organization is nothing more than security theater run by people given a badge and just enough authority to feel they can toss people around. But this hit piece is fucking stupid. It’s akin to making a hit piece about a police department because on of the officers committed a crime off company time and at his place of residence and didn’t in any way use his position or authority to commit the crime. The fact that a man committed statutory rape and was also a TSA agent are completely irrelevant. Yes the article focuses almost exclusively on the fact the person was a TSA agent and purposely misleads you to believe the crime happened at the airport. Finally the fact that the crime happened at the agent’s house is briefly mentioned in the second to last paragraph. Fuck!

Oh and since I’m on a rant I might as well point out the following bloody obvious:

TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said Shanahan had passed two background checks, neither of which picked up any record that would prevent him from getting a job.

That’s right background checks don’t determine if you’re going to commit a crime, only if you have committed a crime and got caught. But Dippity Dipshit says:

“It’s a huge, huge issue,” said Kate Hinni of FlyersrRights.org. “The TSA needs a complete overhaul… If you have a pedophile looking at those naked pictures, they’ve got all your information, it’s a gross violation of their authority…. They should make sure none of them is corrupted in any deviant sexual manner.”

So how in the Hell are those hiring TSA agents suppose to make sure any applicant isn’t corrupted in any deviant sexual manner? Answer me that. What you don’t have an answer? Maybe that’s because it’s fucking impossible. This article is just full of stupidity from start to end.

GunPal CEO Charges Dismissed

Good news has been brought to my attention by Everyday, No Days Off. The CEO of GunPal, Ben Cannon, had all charges against him dismissed.

For those of you who hadn’t heard Mr. Cannon was charged with impersonating a police officer after he was accused of pulling a woman over. The accusation made was he used a red light and badge but the police found no such evidence at his domicile.

Getting Pulled Over When You’re Armed

On thing that those of us who carry need to be concerned about is what to do when an officer pulls us over while we’re armed. The rules about this vary state to state but what I’m writing can only be considered applicable in Minnesota.

The rules in Minnesota are simple. You do not need to inform an officer that you’re armed but if asked you must answer truthfully. When an officer runs your license plate number the returned information will include whether the registered owner of the vehicle has a carry permit or not [Pending official verification. See comments below.]. With this knowledge the officer can chose to ask if you’re armed or not.

There are two schools of thought on how to respond to this situation. The first school says you should inform the officer right away. The second school of thought is that you shouldn’t disclose any information to the officer unless he or she asks first. I’m in the second school of thought and this post is my justification.

First the police officer should know whether I have a permit when they pull me over as my vehicle is registered to me. With this knowledge if they want to know I’m armed then they can ask. Duty of information is their burden not mine. Second a police officer’s job requires them to use anything you say against you. Because of this, outside of casual conversation, my rule of thumb is the only answer questions asked by the police. I never give any information they don’t ask for directly and when they ask a question I answer it as to the point as possible. I’m always polite because they are doing their job after all and I’m glad there are police officers out there. But I’m not going to give them any rope to hang me with either.

My third reasoning is the most important to me though. That’s the fact that criminals have impersonated police officers. These criminals have pulled over innocent people and robbed, raped, or murdered those people. Now if you’re like me you obvious take some time and consideration on the subject of self defense. We’re taught to always be in condition yellow and aware of our surroundings. We’re also taught to be suspicious of anybody we don’t know. So why take somebody’s word that their a police officer without question?

A little known fact is that you can call 911 when you’re being pulled over and ask the operator if there is actually a cop pulling you over. They will tell you whether the person behind you is a cop or not. This is advice they now give in driver education course as a mechanism to verify the person pulling you over at 3 a.m. in the middle of nowhere is actually a cop or not. Additionally a person impersonating a cop is not going to have access to your license and registration information. Unless the impersonator knows you personally or has access to the police database they will not know you are armed. This brings us to the whole subject of not informing the person pulling you over that you’re armed. If the person pulling you over is a real cop they know you have a carry permit and therefore can ask if you’re armed. On the other hand if the person who is pulling you over isn’t a cop they have no way of knowing you have a carry permit and therefore will most likely not ask you if you’re armed. If they ask if you have a carry permit be suspicious because a real officer will have access to such information.

If the person is actually a criminal impersonating a cop do you want to volunteer the information that you’re armed? I sure wouldn’t. I have a gun as a mechanism to use in self-defense. I also carry concealed because I don’t want people knowing I’m armed, the element of surprise is a good thing in my book. Therefore I’m not going to divulge the face I’m armed to somebody who could be a potential criminal.

Stay alert. Don’t trust people you don’t know, especially when that person appears to be a person of authority. Criminals do use disguises of authority to gain peoples’ trust and obedience. You shouldn’t drop out of condition yellow just because the person in front of you looks like an authority figure.

Some People Don’t Get Private Property

I’m been harping about Representative Paymar’s attempt to destroy the property rights of gun owners here in Minnesota. Well since my place of business gets a subscription to the Star Tribune I thought I’d check the Letters to the Editor section and see if anybody wrote about it. Two people did and they obviously don’t understand private property either. The first was written by Stephen Harlan-Marks of Robbinsdale:

Before gun lovers get the idea that state Rep. Michael Paymar’s gun show bill would take rifles from hunters or even handguns from those who feel they need them for protection (“Effort to tighten Minnesota’s gun law getting folks riled up,” March 3), let’s be clear about the bill’s objective. How many Minnesotans think anyone who wishes should be allowed to walk into a gun show and buy 10 AK-47s without a background check, much less a look at the terror watch list? I can’t imagine anyone needing sort of firepower to shoot pheasants or even to ward off a would-be burglar.

The second letter was penned by Peter Clark of Roseville:

Interesting and shocking: On the front page, an article about how upset some people would be if they had to get a permit to buy a gun at a gun show. Then on the first page of the Twin Cities section, the headline “‘Please don’t kill nobody else'”. Maybe gun advocates should pause and think about what they would say if one of their family members were shot down. Remember, guns don’t kill people — people with guns kill people. Thank you, Rep. Paymar, for wanting to set things right. It’s far too easy to get guns today.

So to counter the ignorance I sent the following letter:

After reading a couple letters to the editor dealing with Representative Paymar’s “gun show” bill I believe several facts need to be stated. First and foremost this bill isn’t about gun shows it’s about private sales. Here in Minnesota if I want to sell a firearm, my personal property, I may do so without going through a federally licensed dealer. Paymar’s bill is an attempt to eliminate that right. Private individuals are not allowed to use the FBI’s NICS background check system therefore, if this bill passes, anybody in Minnesota who wants to sell a firearm would have to pay a federally licensed dealer to perform the background check and do the transfer.

The reason gun shows are brought into this is because people will go to gun shows to sell their firearms. However a massive majority of people selling firearms at gun shows are federally licensed dealers and therefore must perform background checks. Additionally a private individual can only sell so many firearms before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) considers that person to be “in the business” and thus must obtain a federal firearms license. So you will not have private individuals selling “10 AK-47s” at a gun show.

Let’s look at a few other facts. The ATF did a study where they concluded that less than 2% of firearms obtained by criminals were purchased at gun shows. Furthermore background checks do not prevent anything. The killers at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood both used legally purchased firearms from federally licensed dealers. This means background checks were performed on both killers.

Finally the number of guns being purchased by Minnesotans has skyrocketed while our rate of violent crime has been plummeting. In this environment why is there a need to add further government interference and burden to the lives on Minnesotans?

Of course being the paper’s nickname is the Red Star for a reason I doubt mine will ever get printed.

Results of McDonald vs. Chicago Oral Arguments

A couple of sources are releasing summaries of the oral arguments today. The first one is Business Week’s write up which can be found here. SCOTUS Blog also has a write up.

Both seem to come to the same conclusion. It appears that incorporation though the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment isn’t likely. On the upside it seems likely incorporation will happen but through the due process clause of the same amendment.

Getting incorporation period is a huge victory and I’m not going to be to picky on how we do it.