I Guess The ATF Will Sell Guns To Colorado Now

A lot of statists are unhappy about Colorado legalizing cannabis. In fact a couple of Republican attorneys general have gone so far as to call Colorado a drug cartel:

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma and Nebraska compared Colorado to a drug cartel on Wednesday and again urged the Supreme Court to let them sue their neighbor over its marijuana production and distribution system.

In sharply written arguments, the two states said Colorado “has created a massive criminal enterprise whose sole purpose is to authorize and facilitate the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of marijuana.”

“The State of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects and profits from a sprawling $100 million per-month marijuana growing, processing and retailing organization that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 States in 2014,” the states’ new brief says.

“If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel.”

Does that mean the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will now give guns to Colorado citizens?

It’s Always About The Money

Late last year the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared that all personal drones must be registered. This declaration was sold as a means to attach accountability to mishandling drones but as with all government declarations it was about the money. The FAA came down on a hobbyist drone operator because he posted his footage on YouTube. Because the operator allows YouTube to display ads on his videos the FAA said he was flying his drone for commercial purposes:

If you fly a drone and post footage on YouTube, you could end up with a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Earlier this week, the agency sent a legal notice to Jayson Hanes, a Tampa-based drone hobbyist who has been posting drone-shot videos online for roughly the last year.

The FAA said that, because there are ads on YouTube, Hanes’s flights constituted a commercial use of the technology subject to stricter regulations and enforcement action from the agency. It said that if he did not stop flying “commercially,” he could be subject to fines or sanctions.

Now the operator has a choice. He can either buy whatever license the FAA requires for commercial drone operations or he can pay a hefty fine. I guess he can also be a good little slave to turn off YouTube’s monetization option since the State is only unhappy with you making money if it doesn’t get a cut of the action.

As always, when the State wants to establish accountability it means it wants to make the people accountable for handing over a chunk of their income.

The Voice Of The People Will Not Be Tolerated

Democracy is supposedly our species’ greatest invention since sliced bread. It’s sold as way for the voice of the people to be heard. In reality democracy, at best, enforces the will of the majority (which is why democracy has never been an effective tool for defending the rights of minorities). But when you boil it down the State is an institution of violence and it’s will is always guided by those with the largest capacity for force.

Venezuela’s latest election was cheer by many because the socialist party lost its majority in the National Assembly. Much to the chagrin of President Maduro, this was supposed to mean an end to the country’s failed socialist policies. But Maduro just won a trump card. The military of Venezuela has sworn undying allegiance to him:

Caracas (AFP) – Venezuela’s military pledged loyalty to President Nicolas Maduro on Thursday, ramping up a high-stakes standoff between his socialist government and a center-right opposition that has vowed to use its new legislative powers to oust him.

[…]

Venezuela’s defense minister and armed forces chief, General Vladimir Padrino, weighed in, saying the military was unwavering in its backing for Maduro — who has vowed to resist “with an iron hand.”

“The president is the highest authority of the state and we reiterate our absolute loyalty and unconditional support for him,” said Padrino, after the under-pressure government sued to stop the emboldened opposition using its newfound powers to kick out Maduro.

Which will win? The National Assembly and its votes or President Maduro and his guns? My money is on the latter. Government votes are powerless without guns to back them up. If, for example, there were no law enforcers in the United States nobody would care what Congress voted on because there would be no means to enforce its decrees. The reason people become so passionate about what Congress votes on is because they know, whether consciously or subconsciously, that those decrees will be ruthlessly enforced by law enforcers.

Even if the National Assembly votes to oust Maduro they have no way of actually ousting him. He, on the other hand, has the ability to round up all the “counter-revolutionaries” and either “reeducate” them or outright execute them.

Democracy is an illusion. It only offers the majority a voice so long as that voice is deemed acceptable by the State. The State, having the highest capacity for violence, can render the voice of the majority irrelevant rather quickly.

We’re All Libertarians Now

One of my friends came up with a phrase that has become quite popular amongst the circles I travel in: we’re all libertarians now. It brings to light the fact that many people call themselves libertarians without actually believing in the philosophy of libertarianism. Gary Johnson, who lost the last presidential election as the Libertarian Party candidate and announced his intentions to lose again this year, is an example. While many of his stated beliefs in the past have been fairly freedom oriented he is adopting a new strategy this year by going authoritarian:

Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of “politics” and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution.

“Under sharia law,” he argued, “women are not afforded the same rights as men.” Under a burqa, how do you know if a woman has been beaten?, he asked rhetorically. “Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims.” Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn’t censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here. He said the Islamic terrorism proceeds directly from the same sources as the thinking behind sharia and that the United States government must make sure it is not inadvertently funding sharia overseas.

Libertarianism is a philosophy built around the non-aggression principle, which simply states that it’s wrong to initiate force. How can one claim they are opposed to the initiation of force when they’re openly supporting laws that threaten anybody wearing a burqa? They can’t. Two the are mutually exclusive.

I also find his opinions about sharia rather hypocritical since he’s running to become part of a government that operates under very similar principles.

While women are not afforded the same rights as men under sharia nobody is afforded any rights under United States law. Rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. But the United States government can legally take any so-called right away. When something can be taken away it’s called a privilege and to quote George Carlin, “That’s all we’ve ever had in this country; a bill of temporary privileges.” Because even the enumerated privileges in the Bill of Rights, which have all be violated by federal law, are a single constitutional convention away from being entirely removed.

Sharia allows honor killings? So does United States law. The terminology is different. Instead of honor killings United State law calls it war. But when somebody offends the honor of the United States they end up at the business end of the world’s largest military, which usually makes them very dead.

And United States law allows the government to deceive nongovernmental entities. Cops can lie to you (but you can’t lie to them because that’s a crime). Every politician can lie to you. Basically anybody employed by the government can lie to you. Hell, the government lies to its allies. In fact I’m not aware of a single entity the United States government doesn’t lie to.

By Gary Johnson’s own criticisms of sharia he should be working to abolish the State, not become part of it so he can do the very things he is criticizing Islam for doing.

This is a common problem amongst statist libertarians (a term I personally find oxymoronic). They aren’t interested in being a force of liberation for all and their acknowledgement of the non-aggression principle only extends as far as the people they like. I’m not sure why they desire to label themselves libertarians, it’s not like there are any cool points attached to the term, but they do and it has rendered the term nearly useless.

Without The TSA Who Would Molest 10 Year-Old Girls

When a job description involved feeling up small children nobody should be surprised when the applicants turn out to be pedophiles. Granted, the grounds on which I accused the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) goon in this story of being a pedophile are speculative but I can’t think of any other reason why she spent two minutes “patting down” a 10 year-old girl:

A young girl’s family is speaking out after a TSA agent patted her down for nearly two minutes at an airport over the holiday break, leaving the girl feeling like screaming.

The girl should have screamed. She should have also kicked the TSA officer as hard as she could and ran as fast as she could. Her parents should have intervened. But what makes this story even more angering is the fact the girl’s father just filmed the molestation and then got down and licked the TSA’s boots like a good little slave:

Her father shot video of the incident at an airport in North Carolina, for a flight back to San Diego. Kevin Payne told NBC San Diego he’s all for airport security and making sure people have a safe trip, but he and his daughter feel the pat-down was uncomfortable, long and inappropriate.

Apparently the father is all for sexual molestation but only if it lasts for less than two minutes. And herein lies my biggest problem with American culture: complacency. For a nation full of people who pride themselves on not taking shit from anybody it seems most Americans are more than happy to roll right the fuck over when somebody with a badge orders them to. Unless the culture can be changed there is no hope for freedom for the masses currently incarcerated in the United States.

Only The State Can Sue You For Being Clever

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is brining a lawsuit against Volkswagen:

The lawsuit is the latest chapter in the fallout since the EPA published a notice of violation in September accusing Volkswagen of installing software on many of its diesel vehicles that would stop the car’s emissions control system from working properly during normal driving, but engage the emissions control system while the car was being tested in a lab, effectively helping Volkswagen cheat air quality regulators in the US.

A press release from the EPA said that approximately 499,000 diesel cars with 2.0 liter engines were found to have defeat devices, and some 85,000 cars with 3.0 liter engines were similarly implicated. The complaint filed by the Department of Justice suggests that the software to defeat the emissions control system in 2.0 and 3.0 liter cars was slightly different, however.

According to the complaint, during federal emissions testing, 2.0 liter engines from Volkswagen “run software logic and/or calibrations that produce compliant emission results” which the car’s onboard system calls the “dyno calibration,” referring to the dynamometer that’s used during emissions testing.

What makes this lawsuit noteworthy is that it demonstrates yet another double standard between private companies and the State. Although the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal to bypass means of preventing the copying of data there is no such law for defeating physical systems. If, for example, you take apart your television, wristwatch, or automobile the manufacturer can void the warranty but it cannot sue you. Likewise, if you buy one of those terrible Masterlock padlocks and pick it open Masterlock cannot sue you for bypassing its system. And while Microsoft may be able to sue you for bypassing the copy protection used on the Xbox it cannot sue you for taking the physical system apart. In other words manufacturers cannot sue you for being clever with hardware.

Yet the EPA is free to sue Volkswagen for bypassing its very poorly designed system. Volkswagen didn’t bypass a means of prohibiting the copying of data as is covered by the DMCA. It wrote a piece of software to detect conditions associated with the EPA’s standardized testing system and present the system with what it expected. A more accurate way of explaining this lawsuit would be to note that Volkswagen is being sued because the EPA is too inept to design a test that’s difficult to detect. Volkwagen was clever and the State can sue you for being clever.

Obama Boosts The Agorist Gun Market

And so beings yet another period of standard capacity magazines becoming as rare as credibility in politicians. Obama has issued a series of arbitrary decrees that are likely to bolster the agorist gun market:

President Barack Obama directed federal agencies Monday to carry out a series of steps to reduce gun violence, including measures to restrict sales by unlicensed dealers — sometimes called the gun show loophole.

Regulators from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will clarify that anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must get a federal firearms dealers license and check the backgrounds of all buyers.

You have to appreciate a governmental system with so many checks and balances that one man can arbitrarily rewrite the rules. More importantly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has become much stingier about who they will issue Federal Firearm Licenses (FFL) to. If you are somebody who sells a gun every couple of years it’s unlikely the ATF will issue you an FFL and therefore your act of selling is now criminal. Don’t let that get you down though, operating in the black market is far more rewarding than operating in the white market. Not only do you get to keep all of your money since you don’t have to declare the income but your customers don’t have to deal with the hassle of filling out a Form 4473 and submitting to an instant background check. Agorist gun deals and buyers win whenever additional burden is placed on commerce.

“The goal is keeping bad actors away from firearms,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

So these rules are going to keep guns out of the hands of police officers and other government agents?

ATF will also notify firearms dealers that they must file a report when guns from their inventory are lost or stolen, including those in transit. A White House statement said an average of 1,333 guns recovered from crime scenes in each of the past five years were traced back to dealers who never received them.

Another burden and another win for the agorist gun market. Who wants to make themselves a target by filling for an FFL when it carries ridiculous requirements such as constantly informing the government of the status of their inventory? It’s far better to not officially be in the business of selling guns so the ATF won’t decide to perform “random” inspections on their place of business because it suspects they haven’t been properly keeping the State informed about their inventory.

White House officials said the administration would seek funding from Congress to allow ATF to hire 200 new agents and investigators to enforce gun laws.

Excellent! There wasn’t enough agents arming Mexican drug cartels already. This should give the agency more staff so they can arm their cartel partners even faster.

There you have it, Obama is working hard to make the black market an attractive alternative to his white market. You have to appreciate a man who makes business for you at the expense of his own.

Smith And Wesson Don’t Believe You Own Your Gun

Update: Smith and Wesson has apologized for being legal cunts. I guess they didn’t have their lawyers on a short enough leash, which is a problem common to most companies. Glad to see they backed off.

My original article is below for preservation purposes.


For years now I’ve been contemplating buying a Smith and Wesson M&P. They’re wonderfully designed pistols. The only thing I don’t like about them is the trigger doesn’t have a tactile reset. Fortunately Apex triggers add that functionality so I need only buy one and drop it in, right? Wrong. According to Smith and Wesson making such modifications violates their precious intellectual property rights:

That’s one of Brownells’ series of ‘Dream Guns‘ (above), highly customized, one-off project guns Brownells gins up as examples of what’s possible if you want to put some money, time and love into your stock pistol. They use these as come-ons for trade shows and such, as attractions to get passers by to stop and check out their wares. Their latest effort, a Smith & Wesson M&P, wasn’t well received by the venerable Springfield gun maker…

They had their IP attorneys send a love letter to Brownells and the other aftermarket companies who collaborated on the M&P Dream gun.

There is a picture of the legal threat Smith and Wesson mailed to Apex, Brownells, DP Custom Works, Blowndeadline Custom, and SSVi. Although I find this entire situation ridiculous I do appreciate Smith and Wesson going out of its way to save me the money I would have otherwise dropped on one of their pistols.

I believe it’s perfectly valid to void the warranty if a customer makes a modification to a product. But threatening a lawsuit over imaginary property being violated is absurd. But this is becoming more common. John Deere already claims farmers don’t own the tractors they purchase because those tractors contain software and that software implies the entire piece of machinery is being licensed. Automotive manufacturers are also using intellectual property laws to justify preventing customers from making certain modifications to their vehicles.

What’s interesting about Smith and Wesson’s case is that it doesn’t involve software, which is the goto excuse used to claim owners don’t actually own the products they buy. Instead it’s claiming that displaying its logo on one of its own guns violates the company’s trademark. I guess anybody who modifies a Smith and Wesson firearm is supposed to file off any logos.

While I fully admit I haven’t purchased a Smith and Wesson firearm in years, the last time I did I didn’t sign any contractual agreement to remove all of the company’s logos if I modified the firearm (if such an agreement were demanded I wouldn’t have bought the gun). Since there is no cause for Smith and Wesson to claim I don’t own the pistol and I didn’t sign a contract making me responsible for removing its logos I’m curious on what grounds they plan to enforce this newfound legal power trip. Granted, I won’t have to worry about it because this kind of nonsense will ensure I take my money elsewhere.

Post Office Censoring Speech

The United States Post Office had decided to get into the censorship of speech business. Cannabis is legal in several states now. Not surprisingly this legalization has created a desire by cannabis related business to advertise their goods and service. Nothing illegal is being advertised so everything should be cool, right? Wrong. The Post Office is claiming that since cannabis is still illegal on a federal level it’s illegal to mail any advertisements for cannabis, even if those advertisements don’t cross state lines:

The confusion started in Portland, Ore., where local newspapers have been running ads for dispensaries and manufacturers in the state’s now-booming weed industry after voters legalized recreational pot for adults last year, following medical pot in 1998.

In November, Portland’s postal district issued a memo to newspaper publishers, telling them they are breaking the law by running ads for pot and using the U.S. mail to deliver their papers.

The reason? The U.S. Postal Service is a federal entity. Even though Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Alaska have legalized recreational marijuana and 23 other states have legalized medical pot, any newspaper running ads in those states violates a federal law preventing advertising for illicit goods.

Since the Post Office still enjoys a monopoly on delivering first class mail it would also be illegal for some of these advertisements to be shipped through another company. With that said, this would make a hell of a good act of civil disobedience. There is one bright side though, the Post Office is apparently unable to enforce this censorship:

But there’s a twist. The Postal Service apparently has no authority to stop the mailers if their publications contain pot ads. The new policy directs postmasters to send a report to the local U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the law enforcement arm of the Postal Service.

The matter would, in theory, then be turned over to a law enforcement agency for prosecution, although it’s unclear whether this kind of crime would be prosecuted. Federal authorities have generally not cracked down on pot sales in states where they’re legal.

This does show one of the major downsides of any monopolization in the mailing market. A mailing agent with a monopoly can end up becoming a censor. Either by refusing to deliver certain goods or material containing particular forms of speech a mailing agent, without any competitors, can create a prohibition without even having to go through the usual legislation process.

I’m A Good Little Slave And You Should Be One Too

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has decreed that anybody who owns a drone must register. Sally French, a reporter for Forbes, registered herself and wrote an opinion piece encouraging others to do the same. It’s titled “I registered my drone. Here’s why you should too” but it might as well be titled “I’m a good little slave who rolls over on command and you should too!”

I logged onto the site and entered my name, home address and email address.

There is a registration fee, so I also had to enter my credit card information. The registration fee is $5 per drone owner — the same $5 processing fee charged for any aircraft registration — but the FAA says it will refund the $5 fee for drones registered through Jan. 20 to encourage participation.

Once I hit the “next” button, I received a personal identification number and certificate to print out (though like most millennials, I don’t have a printer). I did write the identification number on a sticker, which I then pasted on my drone, an original DJI Phantom that I have been flying since early 2013.

[…]

Registration is intended to force some education upon pilots who may not have malicious intent, but also may not have read the “Know Before You Fly” guidelines included with most drone purchases in the U.S. It also means that government and law enforcement officials will be able to track down reckless drone operators — something that, until now, they haven’t been able to do.

The fool! Registration is not intended to educate drone pilots, it’s meant to rake in a little extra cash for the FAA. Although $5 per operator, a fee that’s being refunded until January 20th, doesn’t sound like much when you consider the FFA estimates one million drones will be sold this Christmas alone you can see the cash, which requires the FAA to do almost nothing, becomes a tidy sum. And anybody familiar with how government extortion works knows that the initial $5 fee is just the bait and the price will only go up. But the registration fee isn’t the real money maker. There is an up to $250,000 fine for anybody who flies a drone without registering with the FAA by February 19th. Since a lot of drone owners will likely remain unaware of the FAA regulation there a large pool of suckers the FAA is going to be able to extort some money out of.

Now let me explain why you shouldn’t register your drone. If you do your name and home address will be made publicly available:

The FAA finally confirmed this afternoon that model aircraft registrants’ names and home addresses will be public. In an email message, the FAA stated: “Until the drone registry system is modified, the FAA will not release names and address. When the drone registry system is modified to permit public searches of registration numbers, names and addresses will be revealed through those searches.”

Sounds like a public wall of shame to me. But you know this list will be abused. Most likely drone manufacturers will use it to send you unwanted advertisements via snail mail (hey, look, the registration system raises some money for the Post Office too). And anybody looking to steal a drone knows exactly where to go.

In this day and age it has become obvious that publicly releasing personal information is dangerous. The fact the FAA’s official policy is to public release the names and home addresses of every registered drone pilot is reason enough not to register. If the FAA isn’t willing to protect the privacy of its “customers” then nobody should do business with it.

So instead of being a good little slave who rolls over on command think about giving the FAA a giant middle finger.