The United States of Argentina

From the American Conservative magazine comes this cautionary tale of woe:

Anyone not alarmed by the state of the U.S. economy is not paying attention. As our Dear Leader begins his term, the theory of very big government has the support of an alarmingly broad political consensus. Despite the obvious dangers—devastating inflation and the ruin of the dollar—the United States seems pledged to a debt-funded spending spree of gargantuan proportions.

In opposing this trend, critics face the problem that the perils to which they point sound very theoretical and abstract. Perhaps Zimbabwe prints its currency in multi-trillion units, but that’s a singularly backward African dictatorship: the situation has nothing to do with us. Yet an example closer to home might be more instructive. Unlike Zimbabwe, this story involves a flourishing Western country with a large middle class that nevertheless managed to spend its way into banana-republic status by means very similar to those now being proposed in Washington.

The country in question is Argentina, and even mentioning the name might initially make any comparison seem tenuous. The United States is a superpower with a huge economy. Argentina is a political and economic joke, a global weakling legendary for endemic economic crises. Between them and us, surely, a great gulf is fixed. Yet Argentina did not always have its present meager status, nor did its poverty result from some inherent Latin American affinity for crisis and corruption. A century ago, Argentina was one of the world’s emerging powers, seemingly destined to outpace all but the greatest imperial states. Today it is … Argentina. A national decline on that scale did not just happen: it was the result of decades of struggle and systematic endeavor, led by the nation’s elite. As the nation’s greatest writer, Jorge Luis Borges, once remarked, only generations of statesmanship could have prevented Argentina from becoming a world power.
...
The country was killed by political decisions, and the primary culprit was Juan Perón. He dominated political life through the 1940s and ruled officially as president from 1946 to 1955, returning briefly in the 1970s. Although he did not begin the process, he completed the transformation of Argentine government so that the state became both an object of plunder and an instrument for plunder.

Perón came from a fascist and corporatist mindset, which became more aggressively populist under the influence of his second wife Eva. They aimed their rhetoric against the nation’s rich, a designation that was swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated. To equalize the supposed struggle between the rich and the dispossessed, the Peróns exalted the liberating role of the state. The bureaucracy swelled alarmingly as nationalization brought key sectors of the economy under official control. Government bought loyalty through a massive program of social spending while fostering the growth of labor unions, which became intimate allies of the governing party. Argentina came to be the most unionized nation in Latin America. Perón also ended any pretense of the independence of the judiciary, purging and intimidating judges about whom he had any doubts and replacing them with minions. [emphasis added]

The Peronist model—a New Deal on steroids—evolved into an effective clientelism, in which party overlords and labor bosses ruled through a mixture of corruption and violence. Clientelism, in effect, means the annexation of state resources for the benefit of political parties and private networks. Right now, both the word and the concept are not terribly familiar to Americans, but this is one Latin American export that they may soon need to get used to. ...

Article here. The road to socialism, like the road to hell, is paved with good intentions. Go read the whole thing.

Good kisser

Tonight's osculation video:




Ok, here's some eye candy to fill your mind with some different images after that last video:

Rhode Island group tackles permit issuance standards

From the Ocean State:

A behind-the-scenes tug of war has been going on between the state’s police chiefs and gun ownership advocates over how local departments should decide who is allowed to carry a concealed firearm in public.

For more than a year, members and volunteers with the Citizens’ Rights Action League Rhode Island, a group of gun-rights supporters, have been showing up in police stations across the state, demanding to see the individual department’s standards for deciding who gets a concealed-weapons permit.

Police departments were required to develop such policies under the terms of a 2002 Superior Court decision in a suit brought by Smithfield resident James W. Archer, head of the gun-rights organization.

Archer, a former Republican Town Committee chairman, said the object of the visits to departments was not to get a permit. The aim, he said, was to be denied one — so the league can file a lawsuit that would produce a decision, like in the 2002 case, which would roll back what the league sees as unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership.

“What we’re trying to do here is construct a whole new body of law,” Archer said.
...
Archer said he sees psychological testing not as a tool to make better decisions, but as a hurdle to dissuade potential applicants. Having lost the ability to pass the responsibility to the state, he said, police chiefs were looking for ways to deter applicants from even asking.

“We’ve won, they’ve accepted that,” he said of the issue of evaluating applications. “Now they’re finding reasons not to issue.” ...

Article here.

New Jersey Gov. calls for more infringements

From the Garden State:

Gov. Corzine called yesterday for tougher gun laws at the state and national levels, citing the recent discovery of 259 firearms at a man's Gloucester County home as a reason to bring back a federal ban on assault weapons.

Corzine also called on the state Senate to give final legislative approval to a plan to limit New Jersey handgun buyers to one purchase every 30 days - putting public pressure on lawmakers to pass a bill that appears stalled.

"There is no reason why anyone needs more than one gun a month," Corzine said. "It is time for the Senate to take this bill up and pass it."

The Assembly has approved the measure.

Corzine made the calls for tougher laws before a roomful of gun-control advocates who had gathered as he signed a law increasing the penalties for illegally possessing machine guns or assault weapons in New Jersey.

He said a federal assault-weapons ban was needed to complement New Jersey's restrictions. A national ban "in theory" would have blocked Brian Hinkel from amassing such a large arsenal at his Franklin Township home, Corzine said.

Hinkel, whose 259 weapons were discovered in late January, faces numerous criminal charges, including five counts of possession of an assault rifle.

Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, said that even though New Jersey bans assault weapons, they can be bought in other states and brought here illegally. A national ban would prevent buyers from obtaining assault weapons anywhere, he said.

"They're made to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, and as such they have no use in a society," Miller said. [emphasis added]

Article here.

Zero tolerance policies, Colorado edition

From the Rocky Mountain State, comes this piece of craziness:

AURORA - A local school district has suspended a member of the Young Marines youth leadership group after students saw drill props in her vehicle.

Marie Morrow, a 17-year-old senior at Cherokee Trail High School in Aurora, is serving a 10-day suspension. Her punishment could be extended at an expulsion hearing later this month.

Morrow is a student leader in the Douglas County Young Marines, a group dedicated to teaching leadership and life skills.

Cherry Creek Schools suspended Morrow after other students reported seeing guns inside her SUV, which was parked outside school while she was in class.

The school also called police, who seized the three drill team guns made of wood, plastic and duct tape. Police told Morrow to claim them in time for her after-school drill practice off-campus.

School administrators, however, were less understanding. The guns were declared "authentic representations of genuine weapons," triggering a mandatory expulsion statute in state law.

"I have never been in trouble at all," said Morrow, who is planning to attend the United States Merchant Marine Academy. "I hadn't imagined in a million years that anything like this would have happened."

Chris Proctor, commanding officer of the Douglas County Young Marines, was rebuffed in his attempt to explain the props to school leaders.

"There's no mistaking that these are not real rifles," said Proctor. "I think somewhere along the line, logic has to take over and they have to be able to make exceptions to the rules." [emphasis added]

"Marie is one of the best kids that you could ever imagine," he said. ...

Article here. These school administrators don't appear to have a single working neuron among the lot of them.

UPDATE: Looks like the student will be allowed to return to school:

GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo. - A Colorado high school student expelled for having fake drill-team rifles in her car was cleared Friday to return to school.

The school board limited the expulsion of Marie Morrow, 17, to time served for bringing the duct-taped "rifles" made of wood and plastic to Cherokee Trail High School in the back of her car. She was expelled immediately on Feb. 5, pending a school board decision.

Colorado´s "zero tolerance" law mandates that students who bring weapons - even facsimiles - to school, must be expelled for a period ranging from one day to one year. Marie's case has led some state lawmakers to consider legislation that would add flexibility to the law.

Article here.

Don't try this at home, kids

Tonight's pyromaniac's delight:

The "evolution" of Kirsten Gillibrand

From the New York Times:

SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. — Now that Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand represents all of New York rather than one conservative swath outside Albany, she has described her shift on hot-button issues like illegal immigration and gay marriage as a broadening of her position.

But in the 20th Congressional District, which first sent Ms. Gillibrand to Washington in 2006, many are taking it as an abandonment of the principles that persuaded them to support a Democrat in this predominantly Republican area.

“I don’t think it’s right when you say one thing and do something else,” said Michelle Boyea, 44, as she sat in her car after running errands around town. If you have a position, and this is what you feel, why would you change it just because you got a new job?”

Ms. Boyea was unhappy with Ms. Gillibrand’s sudden change of heart, after being appointed to the Senate, on issues that had won her re-election in November. She liked the voting record that had earned Ms. Gillibrand a 100 percent rating by the National Rifle Association (Ms. Boyea’s husband owns several firearms). She approved of Ms. Gillibrand’s hard line against illegal immigration and her opposition to gay marriage. “I’m Catholic,” Ms. Boyea said.

But Ms. Gillibrand has softened some of her positions in the weeks since her appointment. She declared her support for gay marriage, not merely civil unions. She assured Latinos and Asians in New York City that she would work to enact a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And she let Senator Charles E. Schumer, who had enthusiastically supported her selection, reassure downstate voters that she would “evolve” on gun control, too.
...
“I respected the fact that she came out and said she was going to back up the guns, and hunting,” said Keith Disbrow, 53, a retired correction officer. “I’m an avid hunter and fisherman. But as soon as Schumer and Silver got to her, I watched her change her tune. She was doing a decent job, but now that she’s going to be a statewide senator, I think they’re going to make her fold. She’s not going to have the Democratic Party’s backing if she doesn’t.”

Article here. Sadly, she's starting to look like just another spineless politician.

South Carolina lawmaker's bill would allow guns in schools and restaurants

From the Palmetto State:

Holders of concealed-carry permits could bring their weapons onto school grounds and into restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages under a bill introduced by state Sen. Shane Martin.

On school property, a gun would have to remain in a locked vehicle. In a restaurant, a person carrying a gun could not sit at the bar.

Sens. Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney, and Glenn Reese, D-Boiling Springs, have signed on as co-sponsors.

Martin said the bill would keep "a good, law-abiding citizen out of trouble just from pulling onto campus," and would allow teachers and administrators who hold concealed-carry permits to keep their weapons in their vehicles while at work. ...

Article here.

Second Circuit: Second Amendment doesn't apply to states

So rules the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which includes New York), in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. From CrimProf Blog via Reason Magazine:

The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms does not apply to override state firearms bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared Jan. 28. Under the incorporation doctrine, only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and the Second Amendment is one of those that does not, the Second Circuit held (Maloney v. Cuomo, 2d Cir., No. 07-0581-cv, 1/28/09).

The statute at the center of this case, N.Y. Penal Law §265.01(1), provides criminal penalties for possession of a broad range of items, including weapons used in martial arts. The plaintiff was charged under the statute after police found fighting sticks, or nunchaku, in his home. He ended up pleading guilty to a different charge and then filed a lawsuit against the county prosecutor and others seeking a declaration that the law offends his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The appeal court's opinion is available here.

As the Reason article notes, the next court to consider whether the Second Amendment apples to the states will likely be the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit, when it renders its decision in the long-running Nordyke case.

Georgia group pushes for more gun rights

Short article about GeorgiaCarry.org:

... Georgiacarry.org began in 2006 and since they’ve gained support – signing up more than 3,400 members who fight for gun rights with them. They fought for the passage of House Bill 89 last year, which in short allows you to carry concealed guns in more places, like restaurants. To demonstrate responsible gun use, the members invited us to participate in an International Defense Pistol Association (IDPA) scenario with them. In today’s scenario we were dining at a restaurant when a gunman walks in. We pull our pistol shoot him and his accomplices. Photojournalist Will Hammargren and I went through training, donned proper safety gear and then shot pistols for the first time. ...

Article here. Video of the reporter shooting the IDPA stage available at link.

This is a test

Tonight's test pattern and musical interlude:

Orange County fight between sheriff and supervisors gets ugly

Article on the ongoing disagreements between the sheriff and the county board of supervisors in Orange County, California. The new sheriff's restrictive CCW issuance (relative to her predecessor) policy sparked the controversy:

Eight months into office, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is locked in a bitter power struggle with the same Board of Supervisors that appointed her.

And the two sides could soon end up in court.

What started as a debate over Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits has morphed into a multi-faceted fight with supervisors, who accuse her department of spying, bullying and misusing public property.

Twice in recent weeks, Hutchens has publicly apologized to board members. Once, after a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on supervisors' notepads during a hearing, and again after command staff used its department BlackBerrys to exchange text messages ridiculing supervisors and critics of her proposal to reduce the number of concealed gun permits.

Supervisor Chris Norby responded this week by sending a mass e-mail accusing Hutchens of mounting a "misguided jihad" on gun-rights advocates, prompting calls from Hutchens' supporters for Norby to apologize. ...

Article here. Heavy handed tactics by the new sheriff. Hopefully the voters will boot her out of office in the next election.

Guns at work

From the Lone Star State:

... With companies laying off people by the thousands, some corporations are questioning their gun policies. Sometimes the answers they’re getting are surprising.

“If they call me and say, ‘Should we prohibit handguns?’ I do not automatically say, ‘Yes, of course,’” Tim McInturf of the Littler Law Firm said.

In Texas, unless a company specifically prohibits it, there’s nothing illegal about packing a weapon at work.

In fact, 11 News found at least one case in which a group of Houston business executives were actually advised to start carrying guns.

“We actually sent the executives to get trained on handguns, to apply for licenses,” McInturf said.

McInturf advised the executives to arm themselves after a worker they laid off threatened to kill his bosses.

He said with the recession in full swing, it’s not uncommon for companies to call saying they’ve been threatened by workers who’ve lost their jobs.

In those cases, McInturf said it can make sense for employees to be armed so they can protect themselves. ...

Article here. Video news report available at link.

CCW applications surge in Missouri

And the beat goes on. From the Show Me State:

SIKESTON, Mo. — Local concealed-carry firearms safety courses are booming.

Missouri's concealed weapons law became effective Feb. 26, 2004. Among the requirements to apply for a concealed-carry endorsement is completion of an eight-hour firearms safety course.

Because of concerns President Obama may try to push for a federal ban on carrying concealed weapons, instructors are seeing a surge of people taking these firearm safety courses.

"All of your people who are real gun shooters, your diehards, came in the first year or two," said Marty Williams of Charleston, Mo., a reserve sheriff's deputy for Mississippi County who has been teaching firearms safety courses at Re-Armms in Sikeston and at a community center in Mississippi County since the law took effect.

"We're getting a different crowd now," Williams said. "Most of the people we are getting now are people who shoot very little or have never shot."

Article here. We can thank Gun Salesman of the Year Barack Obama for the influx of new gun owners and the rise in CCW applications.

Arkansas panel OKs concealed carry in church

From Arkansas, followup to this post about a bill to allow the law-abiding to carry in church (obviously, the non-law-abiding are already able to carry in church):

LITTLE ROCK (AP) — An Arkansas legislative committee has backed a bill allowing concealed weapons in churches, despite concerns of a pastor who said he was shot in a sanctuary two decades ago and still opposes the measure.
Advertisement

Pastor John Phillips Jr. told members of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that churches should be safe places, free from weapons.

"As a group of lawmakers, are we really wanting to send the message that we are raising the white flag of surrender to the anarchy that's in the streets and that the only way that our citizens can feel safe in their houses of worship and churches is that we come packing heat in the pews?" Phillips asked lawmakers.

But lawmakers endorsed the bill by Rep. Beverly Pyle, R-Cedarville, and focused most of their discussion on whether the legislation would place a burden on churches that decide not to allow concealed guns inside sanctuaries. Under current state law, any place that bans the guns must erect a sign that says so.

In contrast to Pastor Phillips probably well-meaning but criminal-friendly position, some pastors get it:

Several pastors from churches around the state testified in support of the bill, saying they worried about the safety of their congregations.

"To me, being in church is probably one of the most vulnerable places anyone can be as far as an attack happening," said Pastor Mark Thorton of the Big Creek Missionary Baptist Church in Malvern. "And if there's no one there who can legally carry a handgun, we're going to be on the 6 o'clock news."

Article here.

Panda mating rituals

Tonight's animal husbandry documentary:



:)

Anything but guns

From an article on anti-piracy training:

With an alarming number of tankers and cargo ships getting hijacked on the high seas, the nation's maritime academies are offering more training to merchant seamen in how to fend off attacks from pirates armed not with cutlasses and flintlocks but automatic weapons and grenade launchers.

Colleges are teaching students to fishtail their vessels at high speed, drive off intruders with high-pressure water hoses and illuminate their decks with floodlights.

Anti-piracy training is not new. Nor are the techniques. But the lessons have taken on new urgency - and more courses are planned - because of the record number of attacks worldwide in 2008 by outlaws who seize ships and hold them for ransom.

At the California Maritime Academy in Vallejo, Calif., professor Donna Nincic teaches two courses on piracy. Students learn where the piracy hot spots are and how they have shifted over the years.
...
Typically, small numbers of pirates - as few as two and up to 15 or 16 - draw up alongside ships in motorized skiffs and use grappling hooks and rope ladders to clamber aboard. Some of the biggest ships might have no more than two dozen crew members.

Often the pirates are armed with knives and guns. Pirates off the coast of Somalia have taken to firing automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

In the old days, ships were armed with cannons to guard against pirates. But nowadays, crew members for the most part do not carry guns. And maritime instructors say that arming crews is not the answer.

It is illegal for crews to carry weapons in the territorial waters of many nations, and ship captains are wary of arming crew members for fear of mutinies, Miss Nincic said. Also, some worry that arming crew members would only cause the violence to escalate. [emphasis added]

Instead, the best defense is vigilance, Miss Nincic tells students.

Article here. Any of these arguments for not arming crews of pirate victim ships sound familiar? Avast, ye anti-gun mateys!

Virginia's anti-loophole lefties left longing for legislative love

From Old Dominion last week, via the Washington Post:

The Virginia Senate showed Tuesday that tobacco and guns are still valued and protected, both culturally and politically, by many of the state's residents.

The Democrat-controlled chamber dealt significant blows Tuesday to two major proposals championed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), setbacks for a governor who has struggled to score legislative victories during his tenure.

The Senate Finance Committee deadlocked on Kaine's proposal to double the tax on cigarettes, a move aimed at raising money to close a $3 billion budget shortfall. Hours later, the full Senate rejected a bill that would have required merchants who sell weapons at gun shows to first conduct background checks on the buyers. The measure's sponsor used a procedural maneuver to keep the legislation alive, at least for one more day. [Update: the bill to close the "loophole" is officially dead. See here.]

The Senate also voted to repeal a law that prohibited anyone from carrying concealed weapons into a club or restaurant where alcohol is served.

Article here. We'll have to see if Gov. Kaine signs the bill repealing the concealed carry in restaurants prohibition (open carry is already lawful in restaurants), if the bill makes it to his desk.

CCW bill introduced in Illinois

From the state that gave us Rod Blagojevich, Dick Daley, and Barack Obama:

State Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, announced he recently introduced a bill to establish statewide standards for permits to carry concealed firearms in Illinois.

“Forty-eight states have some form of concealed carry and it is time Illinoisans have the right to better defense themselves and their property,” Bradley said in a news release. “Illinois needs to catch up with the rest of the nation. Responsible gun owners deserve the right to protect themselves and their families.”

Bradley said his bill — House Bill 245, the Family and Personal Protection Act — would authorize Illinois State Police to issue concealed firearms permits to applicants who meet qualifications.

Article here. Interestingly, Rep. Bradley is a Democrat. We'll have to see if this bill goes anywhere, besides the circular file typical of pro-gun bills in that state.

At least the Illinois Sheriffs are on record as supporting licensed concealed carry:

St. Clair County Sheriff Mearl Justus is backing a bill to allow Illinois residents to carry a concealed weapon.

"In today's society the citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families," Justus said in a prepared statement.

"As a law enforcement officer with over 54 years of service it is my opinion that anyone wishing to carry a concealed handgun, for their personal protection, must participate in a training course," he said. "I believe to be successful the key to concealed carry is training."

House Bill 245, the Family and Personal Protection Act, was introduced Jan. 20 by state Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion. If passed, the bill would establish statewide standards for issuing permits to carry concealed firearms in Illinois.

Missouri and 47 other states have already legalized concealed carry. Only Illinois and Wisconsin have no form of concealed-carry handgun laws.

On Tuesday the Illinois Sheriffs' Association unanimously passed a resolution supporting a concealed-carry handgun law, the first time the association has passed such a resolution since it was founded in 1928. Ninety percent of Illinois sheriffs, when surveyed by the association, said they "support concealed carry in Illinois if adequate training and safeguards are included." [emphasis added]

Article here.

A case of mistaken identity

Tonight's humor:

A man was being tailgated by a stressed out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front
of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.

The tailgating woman was furious and honked her horn, screaming in frustration, as she missed her chance to get through the intersection, dropping her cell phone and makeup.

As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up.

He took her to the police station where she was searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a holding cell. After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects.

He said, "I’m very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the ‘What Would Jesus Do’ bumper sticker, the ‘Choose Life’ license plate holder, the ‘Follow Me to Sunday-School’ bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk; so naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car."

:)

Will new New York senator cave to anti-gunners

From The Hill:

A gun-control group is calling on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to sponsor a gun-control bill to show that she’s evolving from being a favorite of the gun lobby to a true blue-state senator.

“She’s saying she realizes that she represents a statewide constituency,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “One way she could prove she has evolved is to push this issue.”

Helmke said his group is seeking a meeting with Gillibrand to ask her to support legislation to require background checks on gun sales at gun shows, commonly referred to by activists as “closing the gun-show loophole.” A message left with Gillibrand’s office was not returned Tuesday afternoon.

Gillibrand’s pro-gun views and “A-rating” from the National Rifle Association were a plus in holding a gun-toting New York district as a Democrat. But they drew protests as soon as Gov. David Paterson (D) selected her to replace now-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Anti-gun groups and liberal bloggers protested the appointment. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) threatened to take Gillibrand on in a primary or to support a gun-control backer who would challenge the new senator.

Article here. I guess we'll get to see if the new New York senator has any backbone worthy of her "A+" NRA rating.

New report may cast doubt on current forensic methods

From the New York Times:

Forensic evidence that has helped convict thousands of defendants for nearly a century is often the product of shoddy scientific practices that should be upgraded and standardized, according to accounts of a draft report by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific research group.

The report by the National Academy of Sciences is to be released this month. People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting.

The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court. It concludes that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the field, which has been dominated by law enforcement agencies, say forensic professionals, scholars and scientists who have seen review copies of the study. Early reviewers said the report was still subject to change. ...

Article here.

President Obama executive order favors "union-only" contracts

Last week, President Obama signed an executive order that will likely result in higher taxpayer costs for federally-funded construction projects. The Kansas City Star has the story:

President Barack Obama on Friday issued an executive order backing the use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects.

The order encourages federal agencies to have construction contractors and subcontractors enter project labor agreements. Those agreements require contractors to negotiate with union officials, recognize union wages and benefits and generally abide by collective-bargaining agreements. ...

Naturally, the Teamsters are happy:

"Project labor agreements are a win-win for everyone involved," said James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. "Contractors get highly trained, skilled labor with fixed costs, and workers are fairly compensated with their rights and safety protected."

While the Associated Builders and Contractors trade group points out that

"Today's decision to repeal Executive Order 13202 opens the door to waste and discrimination in federal and federally funded construction contracts," said ABC President and CEO Kirk Pickerel. "This action removes the safeguards that prohibited discrimination based upon union affiliation in the awarding of federal contracts.

"Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs [project labor agreements] are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces," said Pickerel. "Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.

"Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union," added Pickerel. "All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government."

Bottom line: all those "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects probably just went up in price. Arbeit macht frei.

Tiahrt Amendment, explained

Article explaining the Tiahrt Amendment, for those unfamiliar with one of the anti-gunners' favorite targets:

There is a lot of talk about the Tiahrt Amendment and the fact that the gun grabbers want to have the amendment repealed. But what exactly is this amendment?

Last month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sent their proposals for reducing gun violence to the Obama administration. The number one item on the list was repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which they say...

...severely limits the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") to disclose crime gun trace data to the public under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), bars admissibility of such data in civil suits against the gun industry, and restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement.

The first two claims are true, the third a flat out lie. This is the relevant text:

That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding

The data in the Firearms Trace System database is clearly available to law enforcement. In fact, that was what it was created for.

What it is not for is to let anti-gun politicians use this information for their own agendas. The trace data is only useful in direct conjunction with a criminal investigation. Any other use would not yield viable results because of the nature of the data. For example, a trace might be run on a firearm that had nothing to do with a crime, such as to verify a firearm isn't stolen. This would yield a false positive if attempting to use the data out of context on a witch hunt to try to find problems that don't exist.

Hurting the gun grabbers' argument even further is that both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Fraternal Order of Police want the data to remain restricted to law enforcement. Their primary concerns are that it would jeopardize ongoing investigations and put undercover officers at risk.

Article here.

Golf injury

Tonight's humor:



:)

Obama moves control of Census to White House

President Obama has decided to move direct supervision over the census from the Commerce department to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Census data, of course, is used by the state legislatures to determine voting districts. BizzyBlog has the story:

On January 25, as noted by yours truly, (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), Jonathan Martin at Politico.com reported that President Obama “is moving to create perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history – a sort of West Wing on steroids that places no less than a half-dozen of his top initiatives into the hands of advisers outside the Cabinet.” (The picture on the right is at that report.)

I’m not aware that any Old Media outlet besides Politico itself, which is largely a collection of Old Media alums, has covered this development.

The power grab continues. My bet is that Old Media will also maintain its studied ignorance of this development, despite years of whining about alleged Executive Branch excesses during the Bush administration.

Now it looks like Barack Obama’s inner circle is going to teach the Census Bureau how to count in 2010. CQpolitics.com this morning reported that the White House is taking the next decennial census away from the Commerce Department, and keeping it for itself. ...

More Chicago-style "Change We Can Believe In". To paraphrase the author of the linked article, the new Census math will probably now go something like this:

President Obama: "How much is 2 plus 2?"

Census taker: "How much would you like it to be?"

Expect ominous mischief from a now much more politicized Census Bureau.

Michigan county drops gun board meetings for CCW applicants

From Michigan:

LAPEER -- Law enforcement leaders are at odds over a majority decision to abolish monthly conferences between the Lapeer County Gun Board and citizens who hope to carry concealed weapons.

Lapeer County Sheriff Ron Kalanquin believes the meetings with applicants who will have hidden weapons for the first time is an important part of the process. Michigan State Police F/Lt. Patrick McGreevy and the Lapeer County Prosecutor's Office consider the gatherings a waste of law enforcement resources.

"Being a concealed permit licensee marks these individuals as the good citizens of our community," Kalanquin said. "I did not consider the CPL (Concealed Pistol License) Board a burden, rather an opportunity and effective mechanism for individual citizens to sit down face to face with their chief law enforcement officials to pose questions or make comments."

"If a person qualifies, is certified and they have no criminal history or mental problems, they're entitled to obtain the license," said Lapeer County Prosecutor Byron Konschuh. "There is no reason they should be inconvenienced by having to meet with the gun board. They still have to go through the same process to obtain the license."

Article here. The whole point of "shall issue" laws was to remove discretion (which was often abused) from the application approval process. Once you meet the objective, statutorily defined criteria, the state must issue you the permit. If that's the case, what's the point of requiring "gun board" interviews? Good news for Lapeer county residents.

Paint job

Tonight's how-to-paint-a-jumbo-jet time lapse video, of a Northwest Airlines 747-400 getting new Delta colors (Delta bought Northwest last year):



Cool. Gotta love the mighty 747! A true aviation icon.

Arkansas lawmakers to debate guns in churches

From Arkansas:

Little Rock, AR - Should you be able to carry a gun to church? It's a question state lawmakers will be taking up next week when they debate a bill that's kicked up a little controversy. The bill being discussed would let churches decide on their own to post a sign to ban guns inside, but opponents say it should not even be an option.

Grant Exton is a gun owner and president of the state's Concealed Carry Association. He's been working with lawmakers on a bill that would allow people licensed to carry a concealed handgun to take their guns to church. Exton says the proposed law's less about guns and more about property rights.

(Grant Exton, Concealed Carry Association) "Businesses, homes here in Arkansas are able to make the decision on whether they want to have people carrying on their premise, and we're just trying to give that right to churches as well."

Article here. The fewer "gun-free" zones that exist, the safer peace-loving folks will be. Unfortunately, some clergy aren't supportive of defending innocent life:

Little Rock pastor John Phillips, now at Central Church of Christ, has first-hand experience with guns in the sanctuary. In 1986, while working at a different church, across town, he was gunned down in the pulpit.

(John Phillips, Little Rock Pastor) "A gentleman came into the church. He was mentally deranged, and at the end of the sermon, pulled out a gun and shouted something about baptism and proceeded to shoot me in the back a couple of times. I still carry one of the bullets embedded in my spine."

Phillips says philosophically, a sanctuary is a place of peace and should be gun free. As for protection, despite what he's been through, he says he feels safer in a church with no guns.

(Phillips) "We really believe God provides and protects his own and that it wouldn't be in the best interest of what the church stands for to have people armed and packing on Sunday morning."

Sadly, it may take a mass shooting or terrorist massacre at one of these "gun-free" churches for a critical mass of people to realize that a "gun-free" zone really means "disarmed victim" zone.

Nevada town drops effort to ban guns on town property

From Pahrump, Nevada:

There was definitely a hot time in the old town Tuesday night, due in part to an item placed on the town board meeting agenda by Pahrump Town Manager Bill Kohbarger that would have barred firearms on town-owned property, in town-owned buildings and at town-sponsored events.

Fired up residents braved the frigid winds blowing down from snow-capped Mt. Charleston as they streamed into the Bob Ruud Community Center 30 minutes early to ensure a seat for the meeting.

By the time the meeting was called to order at 7 p.m., dozens of residents were standing in the back of the hall.

The board's first order of business after the pledge of allegiance was to permanently remove the firearms ban from the agenda, on advice from the town's attorney, Rick Campbell.

He said, "My research shows the town does not have the legal right to enact these types of ordinances." That ended the matter for the board but didn't stop the 200 or so people in attendance from wanting to voice their opinions. Residents waiting to address the board lined up behind the speaker's podium and around the back of the auditorium.

Board Chairman Nicole Shupp tried to cut off the speaking, but attendees protested, wanting the board, and specifically Kohbarger, to know where they stood on the issue.

A man stating he was from District 5 was first to speak. His name was lost in the noise of the crowd as they reacted to the fact they would not be able to speak on the matter. "The colors have been shown," he said. "We are not okay with this. We can see what's coming in this country. The government is getting out of control. When it comes to gun rights and the Second Amendment, we can't give any more ground. We have zero tolerance on this issue." [emphasis added]

The speaker paused as the hall broke out in thunderous applause. ...

Article here. Time and again we see politicians trying to push their gun control agenda, despite state laws preempting them from doing so.

Her morning elegance

Tonight's musical interlude, Oren Lavie's Her Morning Elegance:

Obama and guns

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

The Obama administration, cited by many Georgia gun owners as the reason they applied for concealed-carry permits last year, supports restrictions on certain kinds of guns and certain kinds of gun sales.

“President Obama believes in the Second Amendment,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in an e-mail Friday. “He supports common-sense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them.”

Brundage said Obama supports reviving the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent. And he backs closing the “gun show loophole,” whereby individuals may buy weapons from other individuals without background checks or other regulation.

The National Rifle Association campaigned against Obama in last year’s presidential race, warning Americans that “you can’t trust Obama with your guns” and declaring that “Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

On the campaign trail in September, Obama said: “This has been peddled again and again. Here’s what I believe … people have the right to bear arms. But I also believe there is nothing wrong with some common-sense gun safety measures.”

Article here. At least he's consistent in his disregard for the Second Amendment. This seems to be one of the few positions he hasn't changed since becoming President.

Texans debate campus and open carry

From the Lone Star State:

AUSTIN — Michael Guzman uses his concealed handgun license to carry a lightweight stainless steel .45-caliber pistol for self-defense.

The 25-year-old Texas State University senior, a former Marine, takes his Kimber Ultra Carry II firearm just about everywhere — except school. State law prohibits him from bringing the firearm on campus.

Guzman would like to see that change this year, and legislators appear to be listening.

Lawmakers are drafting bills — one to authorize the ability to carry a gun on campus and another to allow licensed handgun owners to openly carry their weapons — that likely will be the most hotly debated among several pieces of gun-related legislation to be considered this session. ...

Article here.

Meanwhile, the anti-gunners appear to be on defense:

A couple of interesting things stood out while researching today's story on proposed gun laws.

First: Gun control advocates appear to be doing little this session in terms of pushing legislation they deem favorable.

Marsha McCartney, president of the North Texas Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the group might not ask lawmakers to carry two pieces of legislation -- one that would require background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows and another that would limit handgun purchases to one every 30 days -- that the gun control group normally advocates.

"We haven't completely decided if we're going to ask for those bills to be filed," said McCartney. "But probably not if we have the same committee heads."

She added: "We know how things work in Texas and if you don't have the backing, you don't go far."

For now, the Brady Campaign's top priority for the session, McCartney said, will be trying to mount a good defense to the issue of concealed carry on campus.

On that note, there appears to be some hostility brewing between the group advocating for concealed carry on campus and the group backing the push for licensed Texans to be allowed to openly tote their pistols.
...
One last note: While the push to allow students and faculty to carry concealed handguns on campus has garnered the support of the powerful gun lobby, the open carry movement doesn't yet have the official backing of the National Rifle Association or their state affiliate, the Texas State Rifle Association.

Article here. Let's hope both bills pass.

It's a pity the TSRA and NRA haven't gotten behind the open carry movement. I think that's a mistake on their part. While we can debate the tactical merits of open versus concealed carry, every peaceable citizen should have the option to decide which mode of carry to employ at any given time.

In addition, open carry makes a powerful and visible political statement; concealed carry does not. As Americans, we should not be afraid of, or be prohibited from, visibly exercising our right to keep and bear arms in conjunction with our First Amendment right to free political speech. Open carry does both; concealed carry does not.

Open carry serves to rebut the mainstream media's dishonest (and ludicrous) portrayal of guns as evil, and armed citizens as racist redneck nut jobs. The more the non-gun-owning public sees their fellow citizens peacefully going about their business while armed, the more we can begin to rebut this incorrect and tendentious media stereotype. I'm not saying everyone should open carry all, or even most of, the time (I certainly don't). Far from it. I am saying that peaceable free men and women should be able to choose the carry mode that's right for their particular circumstances.

Who voted for Holder

As you may know, the Senate has confirmed Eric Holder as Attorney General. The International Herald Tribune has the roll call results by state:

The 75-21 roll call by which the Senate voted to confirm Eric Holder as attorney general.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to confirm Holder and a "no" vote was a vote to reject his confirmation.

Voting "yes" were 54 Democrats, 19 Republicans and two independents.

Voting "no" were 21 Republicans.

Alabama

Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska

Begich (D) Not Voting; Murkowski (R) Yes.

Arizona

Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California

Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado

Bennet (D) Yes; Udall (D) Yes.

Connecticut

Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) Yes.

Delaware

Carper (D) Yes; Kaufman (D) Yes.

Florida

Martinez (R) Not Voting; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho

Crapo (R) No; Risch (R) No.

Illinois

Burris (D) Yes; Durbin (D) Yes.

Indiana

Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.

Iowa

Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) Yes.

Kansas

Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.

Kentucky

Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.

Louisiana

Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) No.

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland

Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) Not Voting; Kerry (D) Yes.

Michigan

Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota

Klobuchar (D) Yes.

Mississippi

Cochran (R) No; Wicker (R) No.

Missouri

Bond (R) Yes; McCaskill (D) Yes.

Montana

Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.

Nebraska

Johanns (R) No; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada

Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) Yes; Shaheen (D) Yes.

New Jersey

Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) Yes; Udall (D) Yes.

New York

Gillibrand (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina

Burr (R) No; Hagan (D) Yes.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio

Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma

Coburn (R) No; Inhofe (R) No.

Oregon

Merkley (D) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania

Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island

Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.

South Carolina

DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota

Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) No.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) Yes; Corker (R) Yes.

Texas

Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.

Utah

Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont

Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) Yes.

Virginia

Warner (D) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.

Washington

Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming

Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.

Remember these results, and how your senators voted the next time they tell you they "support the Second Amendment."

Scientific jargon for the layman

Tonight's translation service, to help you decipher what the authors of scientific reports really mean:

"IT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN"... I didn't look up the original reference.

"A DEFINITE TREND IS EVIDENT"... These data are practically meaningless.

"WHILE IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS"... An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.

"THREE OF THE SAMPLES WERE CHOSEN FOR DETAILED STUDY"... The other results didn't make any sense.

"TYPICAL RESULTS ARE SHOWN"... This is the prettiest graph.

"THESE RESULTS WILL BE IN A SUBSEQUENT REPORT"... I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.

"IN MY EXPERIENCE"... Once

"IN CASE AFTER CASE"... Twice

"IN A SERIES OF CASES"... Three times

"IT IS BELIEVED THAT"... I think so

"IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT"... A couple of others think so, too.

"CORRECT WITHIN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE"... Wrong.

"ACCORDING TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS"... Rumor has it.

"A STATISTICALLY-ORIENTED PROJECTION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE FINDINGS"... A wildass guess.

"A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF OBTAINABLE DATA"... Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of Red Bull.

"IT IS CLEAR THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON OCCURS"... I don't understand it.

"AFTER ADDITIONAL STUDY BY MY COLLEAGUES"... They don't understand it either.

"THANKS ARE DUE TO JOE WITHERSPOON FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE EXPERIMENT AND TO CINDY ADAMS FOR VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS"... Mr. Witherspoon did the actual work and Ms. Adams explained to me what it meant.

"A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT AREA FOR EXPLORATORY STUDY"... A totally useless topic selected by my research committee.

"IT IS HOPED THAT THIS STUDY WILL STIMULATE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THIS FIELD"... I quit.

:)

New RNC chairman on guns

Last week, the Republican National Committee elected former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele as its new chairman. Unfortunately, Mr. Steele has a less than stellar position (ok, I'm being charitable here) on gun rights:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law. [emphasis added]
(Source: Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006)

See here. Another so-called conservative with a limp position on one of our most important, constitutionally-protected rights. Great.

[Via Gun Rights Examiner]

The Alinsky Method and gun control

From JPFO, on the anti-gunners' tactics:

Advocates of victim disarmament in today’s American politics owe their tactics and techniques to a man whose name is becoming more and more familiar: Saul Alinsky. Hillary Clinton actually sat at his feet. Barack Hussein Obama was spoon fed his teachings. Bill Clinton was Saul’s ideological son. And you can bet that freshman Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Dem. NY) has been well versed in Alinskyism by her own mentor … Madam Hillary.

For decades gun owners have shaken their head in wonder as lie after lie from the gun grabbers results in more and more anti firearms ownership legislation. We can conservatively estimate that there are at least sixty five million gun owners in America today. That is an immense “interest group”. And yet, gun registration (and outright confiscation) schemes have never, in the entire history of our nation, loomed so ominously on the horizon.

How has this been done? The evolution of an America in the sixties, when kids took shotguns and rifles to school so they could go out hunting after classes, to a climate wherein today a kid draws a picture of a gun in class and gets hustled off to a shrink and likely suspended.

Lunacy reigns. But it didn’t happen accidentally. We’ve arrived at the endgame of a process, a process that Saul Alinsky, if he didn’t invent it, polished, packaged, and taught with unbelievable skill and cynicism.

Alinsky’s last book, published in 1971, a year before he died, is titled “Rules For Radicals”. These tactics are the “hidden weapon” of the more sophisticated “gun control” advocates.

Here are Alinsky’s thirteen basic rules. I’ve commented on each, and how they are used by the victim disarmament crowd. The old saw, “know thine enemy”, is ably served if you first understand what your enemy has been taught. The next time you see an anti gun politician or spokesperson spouting off about “responsible gun ownership”, or “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, or “the rights of hunters” understand that it is all deception based upon Alinsky’s tactics. ...

Go read the article here.

Deconstructing Brady

From an article by Howard Nemerov, examining Brady Campaign claims about the election results:

Of the 25 Congressional races where a Brady-endorsed candidate went up against a NRA-endorsed candidate, Brady won 13. A 52.0% does not bode well for anybody claiming that this election was a mandate for anything, especially since all the head-to-head Brady winners were Democrat. Depending upon how much voter dissatisfaction on other issues impacted this election, Brady’s slight edge here may actually indicate a lack of voter support for their agenda, because voters considered issues like the continued Iraq involvement and the economic downturn the result of Republican policy, a trend that began with the 2006 election when Democrats retook Congress.
...
Brady Campaign endorsed 167 Democrats out of 172 total endorsees (97.1%). Considering that House Democrats had a 58.9% winning percentage, and that Democrat candidates graded “A” by the NRA had an 86.2% winning percentage, it is impossible to find any indication that Brady’s 52% head-to-head winning percentage indicates any mandate on gun control, or that the election was in any way related to gun control. It appears more likely that Brady simply benefited by riding the coattails of the Democrat victory.

Article here. Lots of statistics for the numbers geeks.

Blonde joke

Tonight's blonde joke:

A blond is watching the news with her husband when the newscaster says “Two Brazilian men die in a skydiving accident.”

The blond starts crying to her husband, sobbing “That’s horrible!!! So many men dying that way!”

Confused, he says, “Yes dear, it is sad, but they were skydiving, and there is always that risk involved.”

After a few minutes, the blond, still sobbing, says, “How many is a Brazilian?”

:)

On ammo bans ...

Article by J.D. Tuccille on the latest push by the anti-gunners to ban or restrict ammo:

Hobbled by the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, recognizing that individuals have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, gun control advocates are roaming the land with virtual lightbulbs over their heads. "Ah ha," they say. "You can have your guns, but we'll control your ammunition." Well, they're not the first to think of the idea, and they won't be the first to discover that "banning"' isn't synonymous with "eliminating."

California already has a law requiring firearms to include "microstamping" technology -- basically, firing pins that imprint traceable information on fired cases. The Brady Campaign wants to turn that into a national mandate (PDF). A group called Ammunition Accountability plans to go a step beyond, laser-engraving all bullets with serial numbers at the factory that could then be traced to purchasers in registered transactions. Laws to that effect have been introduced in 18 states, though none have yet passed. And, of course, some folks just want to ban ammunition altogether and convert firearms into decorative wallhangings.

There are, as you might guess, a few problems with these schemes.

Leave aside the cost of redesigning guns with mocrostamping technology and the challenge of replacing the roughly 270 million non-compliant guns already in circulation and in the hands of people not necessarily inclined to cooperate. Let's say you get it done. There is the added problem that few criminals are prone to purchasing their guns and ammunition in legal transactions requiring them to show their identification. Purchasing either a microstamping gun or laser-etched ammunition in a black-market transaction renders the encoded data useless.

Microstamping has the added flaw of being easy to defeat by swapping out the firing pin or by scraping off the stamping elements with a file. An old knife sharpening stone was used to remove the engraving in about one minute in an experiment (PDF) conducted by George G. Krivosta, of New York's Suffolk County Crime Laboratory. Krivosta said the technique could be performed with "no special equipment or knowledge needed."

So if your hypothetical criminal who shops for the tools of his trade at Wal-Mart does knock over liquor stores with a gun registered to his name, he can defeat microstamping with a rough stone.
...
And manufacturing ammunition isn't that hard. Just ask the Israelis about the Ayalon Institute. That's the name of the illicit factory in which Israeli guerrillas manufactured 40,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition per day to feed the submachine guns they made in another facility for their fight against British authorities. Under threat of the death penalty, the facility was built underground, with a functioning laundry overhead to conceal the operation.

Emulating the Ayalon Institute, the clever folks who currently build meth labs and submarines to smuggle cocaine could certainly knock off enough rounds to feed the black market appetite for ammunition. Especially in a country where making ammunition at home is considered a hobby and reloading equipment is already widely available. Illegal manufacture would be simple. That is, assuming enough couldn't be stolen from military and law-enforcement channels to satisfy demand. ...

Read the whole thing here.

North Dakota lawmakers debate campus carry

From the Peace Garden State:

A bill being heard Friday by a legislative committee would allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring guns to North Dakota college campuses.

About 65 students have joined a group called the University of North Dakota Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in support of House Bill 1348, said the group’s president, Greg Plautz.

“Students, faculty and visitors to the UND campus would no longer have to forego their means of self-protection before arriving on campus grounds,” states the group’s position on the bill.

The bill would allow people licensed to carry firearms to bring guns to public gatherings, sporting events, political rallies and other functions. It exempts public and private K-12 schools, but not universities.

Representatives from the North Dakota State University Police and Safety Office plan to testify against the bill.

Article here.

Meanwhile, in neighboring South Dakota:

PIERRE - The South Dakota Board of Regents should continue to regulate firearms on public university campuses, a legislative committee said.

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 5-4 against SB82, a bill that would have made it illegal for a campus to restrict a student's right to have a firearm. The bill would have barred campus officials from expelling or disciplining a student who had a firearm.

The committee vote Wednesday came on a recommendation that the bill not pass. Under legislative rules, a bill tagged with that recommendation must receive 18 votes from the full Senate to be placed on the calendar for floor debate. A call for that vote could come later this week.

Article here.

Florida man tests gun law

From the Sunshine State:

Packing heat got Steven Collazo sacked.

The Boca Raton man now is suing his former employer, the Florida subsidiary of a national funeral-home company, claiming his firing last month violated a new state law that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to have their firearms locked in their cars on workplace property.

The case is believed to be the first in South Florida since the law took effect July 1.

In Orlando, a security guard sued Walt Disney World in July after he was terminated for having a weapon in his car at work. He later dropped the suit because it was too costly to pursue, his lawyer said in an interview.

Collazo, 36, is seeking unspecified financial damages over his firing by SCI Funeral Services of Florida, in a lawsuit filed in Broward Circuit Court. His primary job was removing and delivering human remains.

''He was fired from a job that he liked and excelled at, and needed,'' said Marc Wites, Collazo's lawyer. ''It shouldn't have happened.'' Collazo, who has since gotten a job as a limousine driver, declined an interview request.

Article here.

Self-defense class

Tonight's self-defense lesson:



:)

Chicago gun ban cases consolidated for appeal

The latest news about the lawsuit against King Daley's Chicago gun ban:

[On Jan 28th] we filed our opening brief in the Court of Appeals. The basic arguments may be familiar to those who have followed the proceedings below, but we had somewhat more room to work with at this stage, not to mention the decision below required a response.

All three remaining Chicago-area cases, ours and the two brought by the NRA against Chicago and Oak Park, have been consolidated on appeal. That means that they will be heard and decided together by the same panel, and the parties on both sides are to minimize the degree of overlapping arguments among them. We’ll post the other briefs on this website (the NRA’s, the Cities’, and amicis’) as they come in.

In a week, we expect the amici supporting us to file their briefs. Chicago and Oak Park turn in their efforts in thirty days, followed by their amici in a week. We then get a reply two weeks later. The case will most likely be argued, and perhaps even decided by the Court of Appeals, sometime this year.

The pro-gun side's brief is available here.

Supreme Court retirements

Here's an interesting study of Supreme Court departures, and whether Justices time their departures from the High Court based on political considerations, i.e., whether conservative Justices are more likely to retire during a conservative President's term, so that a conservative-minded replacement can be nominated, and vice versa. From the paper's abstract:

If the Supreme Court often serves the interests of the dominant governing coalition, does such regime assistance extend to partisan departures? Do the Justices time their exit from the bench to enable party allies to appoint loyal and like-minded successors? The answer to this question is not as clear and settled as conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence indicate, with empirical studies sharply divided over the existence of strategic retirement. We offer new evidence regarding the influence of personal and political factors on the probabilities of Supreme Court retirements over the last fifty years. We find limited support for the view that, in deciding whether to stay or go, Justices respond to exogenous political factors like partisan control of the White House. Instead, an important consideration is their role and influence on the Court, suggesting that, at least when it comes to retirement decisions, Supreme Court justices care more about power than party and policy. Helping their party by strategically retiring comes at too high a price: losing their institutional position and influence.

An interesting read. For stats geeks (you know who you are), the paper includes a variety of statistics in the appendices.

Double decker

Tonight's automotive don't-try-this-at-home video:

Global Warming, Oval Office Edition

Via Ed Morrissey at HotAir, we learn that his Majesty has turned up the heat (literally) in the Oval Office:

Last week, Barack Obama caused quite a stir when he allowed himself to be photographed in the Oval Office without wearing a suit jacket, ending the Bush tradition of coat-and-tie for the West Wing. The New York Times reports on how Obama made that possible during a colder-than-usual Washington winter. All Obama did was turn up the thermostat to Hawaii hothouse levels:

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”[emphasis added]

...

But wait! This can't be the same Obama who said when he was running for President:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.[emphasis added]

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
-- Barack Obama, May 2008

I guess when you have taxpayers paying your heating bill, you can set that thermostat as hypocritically high as you want. Maybe he's just following Al Gore's shining example. I guess it's all part of the "Change We Can Believe In."

Embrace the suckiness ...

Of your pistol's terminal ballistics, and vow to keep fighting until you win. From LawOfficer.com's Officer Down series:

Soulis had planned to shoot through the back window if Palmer drew a weapon, but for reasons he still doesn't fully understand, he moved forward and to his right, stopping alongside the passenger door, not more than two feet from the window. Instantly, he realized he'd made a grievous blunder. Grinning with blood lust, Palmer lunged across the seat and shoved a Smith & Wesson Sigma up into firing position. Before Soulis could react, the S&W barked flame, driving a 9mm solidly into the center of his chest. The impact knocked Soulis back slightly, but his vest stopped the bullet.

Palmer was out of the Toyota a split-second later, firing the gun at him over the roof. There was no other cover nearby, so Soulis went down onto one knee behind the front fender to put the Toyota between them. But, at the same instant, two rounds crashed through his left arm, one just above the wrist and the other dead center on the forearm. Another struck him in the left thigh, although he wouldn't become aware of it until later.

Soulis was shooting back now, pumping rounds through the windshield into his assailant. Palmer went down immediately, and Soulis used the opportunity to seek better cover. The only decent cover nearby was his patrol car, so he started backpedaling in that direction, Glock at the ready and eyes scanning for Palmer's return as he moved. Then, spotting the cruiser out of the corner of one eye, he turned and started to sprint toward it. He had barely completed the turn when Palmer opened fire again. One round missed, but another tore through his left shoulder and exited his left bicep. He kept moving until he reached the back of the car, where he dropped to one knee and got back into the fight.

Palmer was scurrying back and forth down the driver's side of the Toyota, shrieking with rage and stopping sporadically to fire, but Soulis was more patient. He held his fire, waited for Palmer's head to pop into view, and then took a shot each time it appeared. Although Soulis knew he was getting hits, Palmer seemed impervious to his gunfire.

Soulis was also becoming apprehensive about his wounds. The bullet hole in his left wrist was an ugly, swollen mess that made him wonder if he would have enough dexterity to reload, and the one in his thigh was spewing blood all over the back of his cruiser. Believing his femoral artery had been hit, he pressed his left hand down over the wound, but that only caused the blood to shoot out another, previously unseen bullet hole. He feared he would bleed out before he could stop Palmer.
...
With these thoughts came an unexpected calm, followed by a new resolve. Up to this point, he'd been fighting a commendable, though primarily defensive battle. But now, infused with the realization that Palmer had to be stopped and that only he could do it, he went on the offensive. Now the predator, he resolved that Palmer would never leave the parking lot, even if he had to take more hits to stop him.

Soulis' gun wasn't empty yet, but he knew better than to take the offensive without reloading. As he ejected the partially empty magazine and slapped in a fresh one, he saw something he hadn't expected. Apparently, Palmer had seen the ejected magazine hit the ground and assumed Soulis had either collapsed or run out of ammo. He left the cover of the Toyota, and advanced toward Soulis. Unaware that he was approaching a conscious and fully armed police officer who knew how to capitalize on an opportunity like this, Palmer walked toward the cruiser. Soulis waited patiently, tracking the man's approach by watching his feet under the cruiser.

Palmer hesitated when he reached the cruiser's right-front fender, as if to consider moving over to the driver's side. Soulis knew he'd have trouble tracking Palmer if he came around that way, so he decided to make his move without delay. He lunged out from behind the car, thrust the Glock up into firing position, and opened fire. His first two rounds hit Palmer center chest, rocking him back on his heels. Palmer flinched as two more rounds hit center mass, and then started backpedaling toward the Toyota. He was still holding his gun, but never raised it to fire.
...
Soulis stopped and fired two rounds through the back window. The first missed, but the second hit Palmer in the upper back, driving his head forward into the steering wheel. That seemed to have done the trick, but then Palmer sat up again, dropped the transmission into reverse, and started backing up. With no time to ponder how Palmer had absorbed so many hits, Soulis took aim and emptied the magazine into his assailant.
...
Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs—considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available—Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Although Soulis could not have known it, Palmer was wanted for murder in a neighboring state. [emphasis added]

[Officer] Soulis made a full recovery and returned to work less than a month later. ...

Article here. While the article is written from an officer-safety standpoint, the key lesson is that a determined attacker can be very difficult to stop. Expect even well-aimed shots to not immediately stop a determined attacker. Only shots that disrupt the central nervous system can be counted on to immediately disable an attacker. Otherwise, you're just punching holes in a fluid-filled body, and hoping your bullet either causes sufficient skeletal damage and/or punctures major blood vessels and your attacker bleeds out to the point where he cannot continue his deadly attack. And that can take a while. (Obviously, if the attacker stops his attack by, e.g., giving up, running away, etc., and is no longer an immediate and/or continuing deadly threat to you and your loved ones, deadly force is no longer justified).

Prepare yourself mentally so that you aren't surprised, and keep fighting. And prepare for the very real possibility that you yourself might be shot, and vow to keep fighting, and to win.

Consider the amount of ammo you carry. Will it be enough if you have to fight for your life against an attacker like the one in the story above?

Medical warning

Tonight's health care alert - you may need to click on the image (to view the original animated GIF image) for the magic to occur:



Really, who needs 20/20 vision, anyway? :)

Gun control not on Obama horizon ... yet

Article from Reason Magazine, arguing that while President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are anti-gun, other political considerations will limit efforts to push further gun controls, at least in the near future:

During his political career, Obama has supported Chicago’s handgun ban (as well as D.C.’s ban, overturned in Heller, a decision he later claimed to agree with) and voted for, or expressed public support for, such gun restrictions as banning concealed public carrying of weapons and barring gun sales within five miles of schools or parks.

Furthermore, a statement on Obama's gun intentions that had disappeared from his campaign site has now reappeared on the White House website. These details in particular raised hackles in the gun rights community:

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade…. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

And his attorney general designate Eric Holder is a straight-up foe of gun rights. He was a principal in the Clinton administration’s perceived attacks on gun owners’ rights; he’s for registration and licensing, mandatory waiting periods, and gun purchase limits. Holder also signed on to an amicus brief on D.C.’s side in Heller, and clearly does not agree with the case’s Second Amendment-affirming decision. He’s been a magnet of discontent for the gun rights community, though in a contentious move, the NRA has chosen not to openly testify against him or count votes for him against congressmen or senators in their NRA scorecards.

Moreover, as certain alarmed folks in the gun rights community will note, there’s plenty that Holder will be able to do as the head of the Department of Justice, including the harassment of gun dealers by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. There are also fears that Obama may issue executive orders restricting the importation of certain kinds of weapons or ammunition.

I don’t doubt that Obama and Holder have little respect for gun rights. Obama’s pandering during the campaign was almost certainly insincere. But what is politically important is not whether he meant it; it’s that he thought he had to do it in the first place. He even had to run ads in such potential swing states as Ohio and Pennsylvania aimed at countering NRA ads that tagged him as an enemy of gun owners.
...
So far, there is no sign of incipient serious gun action on the Hill, or out of the White House. Two new bills that have generated much gun community chatter are sitting mostly sponsorless for now in the Judiciary Committee. Second Amendment enthusiasts are excited about Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns’s National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (H.R. 197) (co-sponsored by Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher), which would create cross-state reciprocity for states that issue concealed carry permits, allowing a gun owner who has one in his home state to essentially use it in other states. (Stearns has authored essentially similar bills in the past, which got nowhere.)

And they are alarmed by Illinois Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush’s bill, a “Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act,” which would pretty much do what the title implies. It too is currently sitting in committee, with zero co-sponsors. Radical pro- or anti-gun action is just not much on Congress’ mind right now.

Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is still quite wary of Obama and nervous about what the next four years will mean for gun rights, though he granted in an interview this week that “we don’t see any legislation on the immediate horizon whatsoever; the few bills introduced, I don’t believe will go anywhere. [Rush’s bill] is asking too much; it’s never gonna happen.”

Still, Gottlieb is concerned about how a Holder-run DOJ might behave in any future lawsuit intended to extend gun rights in which the federal government is a party. He's also worried about how Holder’s BATFE could use existing laws to stymie gun and ammunition dealers. And he fears that any effective new gun control will come without warning from Congress. “Something bad could appear and head to hearings quickly and not be telegraphed months in advance,” seriously harming the gun rights community’s ability to man up and stop it. [emphasis added]

But as far as actual action to restrict gun rights on the federal level, not much is imminent or moving. Congress and the new president are very, very busy spending the U.S. further into hyperinflation or bankruptcy and figuring out exit strategies (or not) from Bush-era foreign policy entanglements. While Justice Department's focus on enforcing existing gun laws may well increase, we're unlikely to see any significant new federal efforts that infringe on the Heller-certified constitutional right to own common weapons for self-defense in the home.

The gun rights community, in other words, is most likely wrong about the extent to which the Obama administration will try to restrict gun rights. (Not that, even in a post-Heller age, they don’t have reason to be worried; short of D.C.-style total gun bans, lower courts so far seem sure that any other gun regulations go under the ruling.) The political irony is that being mistaken about the magnitude of the threat can guarantee they achieve their goals—being wrong, especially convincing the gun rights rank and file to grossly overestimate the Obama threat, will help ensure that the threat never becomes real—even if it never would have.

In the face of an administration that undoubtedly only respects gun rights to the extent that its supporters have the political power to harm it, gun rights forces do need to keep their powder dry; perhaps even excessively stocked. Paranoids may not always have real and effective enemies, but in politics, as in life, paranoia can keep you safe.

Article here. As noted in the article, one of the very real ways that a Justice Department led by an anti-gun Attorney General could adversely affect gun rights is by arguing against applying the Second Amendment to the states. We'll likely see some of those post-Heller cases come up through the courts during President Obama's administration, and I doubt that his administration will support Second Amendment incorporation in the courts.

In addition, as Alan Gottlieb pointed out, "change" can come quickly. Look for an attack on gun rights and for the anti-gunners to try to quickly push through more gun control in the wake of, say, another mass shooting at a "gun-free" zone.

We can get a glimpse of a similar strategy with the trillion dollar plus "stimulus" package being pushed right now; I recall Obama publicly stating that economic recovery will take years, not months, but we apparently can't afford to spend a week or two taking a look at, and analyzing and debating the details of, this gargantuan proposed spending of taxpayer money.

Self-defense classes and gun licenses on rise in Atlanta

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

In early December, three heavily armed men broke into Chris Devoe’s Little Five Points apartment and attacked him and a friend.

One intruder struck Devoe repeatedly in the head with a shotgun and then tied his hands with a cord. Two took his friend, Rachael Spiewak, into another room and sexually assaulted her. The third left with the victims’ ATM cards and passwords, returned, and then he, too, sexually assaulted her.

Word of the attack spread quickly through Atlanta’s gentrifying intown neighborhoods. It became one of a string of violent crimes that together shook residents’ sense of security.

Some responded by forming neighborhood groups and calling for more police protection. Others enrolled in self-defense classes. Still others say they have armed themselves, and applications for new gun permits nearly doubled in Fulton and DeKalb counties from 2007 to 2008, according to statistics from the county probate courts.

Spiewak, a 27-year-old social worker who manages a bicycle co-op, says the assault tested her values, but she felt she passed the test. She didn’t change. Like many of her neighbors, she wants additional cops on the street, but also more community centers, youth programs and better access to public transportation.

“The answer is always non-violence,” said Spiewak, who asked to be named in this article even though The Atlanta Journal-Constitution usually does not identify victims of sexual attacks. [emphasis added]

Article here. Lots of silliness and a general anti-gun slant in that article, and the gun owners interviewed in the piece are portrayed as ambivalent about carrying a gun. Much hand-wringing.

Unfortunately, while the vast majority of folks can be taught to defend themselves, and to understand the moral good of such action, a small percentage of the population probably won't ever understand or be capable of defending themselves. While there are those who are physically limited in their capabilities, for the small percentage of folks we're talking about it's mostly a mental and emotional problem, rather than a physical one.