Washington

This notice is a bit belated, but I'd like to offer congratulations to FishOrMan, who has won his appeal while representing himself, striking a small but personally significant blow for open-carry.

I've stayed away from blogging about the case for a couple reasons.  First, it seems to me that his actions were on the borderline of what the law allows; normal open carry is arguably legal under state law, by way of an affirmative defense, but open carry inside a bank strikes me as exactly the sort of situation that might legitimately "warrant alarm", which would violate the law.  Second, representing yourself in court is usually a very poor decision, and rarely bodes well for the results.  Third, given that he was representing himself, any commentary I could have offered would have been uncomfortably close to legal advice, something I am not qualified to offer, and might well do more harm than good.  And fourth, I was concerned that he had gotten himself into a foreseeable bad situation without adequately preparing for it, and thus put the whole concept of open-carry at risk in Washington State.

That said, I have been following the case personally, and I'm glad that he won. 

I do have one caution, though.

Just because you won this one on a technicality doesn't mean you'll win the next one.  Pick your fights more carefully, and make sure you're prepared to fight them before they start.

I've heard of legislating from the bench, but legislating from the police chief's megaphone is a new one.  Gun Owners Foundation is reporting (via Heartless Libertarian) on a case in Washington State where the local police chief went to a gun show and announced, on the floor of the show, that only licensed FFL dealers were allowed to sell guns there -- without any backing legislation, just his fiat.

That's what I call a police state, folks.

Sometimes, the best way to demonstrate the absurdity of a decision is to follow it to the letter.  Michelle Malkin has an excellent example of this principle.

Host a talk radio program?  Ever mention politics?  If so, you'd better hire a lawyer.  And an accountant.  Because each and every political comment you made is now officially a campaign contribution that must be reported to a government agency.  (The better to censor you, citizen!) And, of course, political commentary is subject to contribution limits; so once you have reported a few of those comments, you had better stop making them.  And you had better hope that you value them correctly, because if you underestimate, wham! you're over the limit!  If you're feeling dizzy already, the Public Disclosure Commission in Washington State has a 46-page PDF document outlining the reporting and registration requirements for speaking about politics.

Of course, for a talk radio host with an audience of thousands, that limit is going to whiz by so fast that he'd hardly get the first sentence out before that limit kicked in.  But the ordinary guy who just talks with his friends and maybe runs a blog doesn't have anything to worry about, right? 

Wrong: you're a "grass roots lobbyist" and required to register if you've spent more than $200 within a single month.
(Did you buy a computer especially for blogging purposes?  How are your bandwidth charges?)  And that's not even considering the federal rules.

And all the while, the Exempt Media pretend to be above it all...  while the courts defend their status as the only media allowed to have a political voice.

This can't be happening.

This is America, land of the free.

Isn't it?

UPDATE: For clarity, the case involves Washington State campaign finance law, although the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act follows similar principles, and the FEC (following a court order) is already setting rules for this sort of thing.

The Heartless Libertarian has an example of campaign finance in action within his own Washington State.  It's a state law, not McCain-Feingold, but it's still objectionable... and it's also a pretty good measure for what McCain-Feingold will do to elections when applied to ordinary people.

The Heartless Libertarian notes the death with suitably restrained appreciation.

By August 1, 2006, each school district shall amend its harassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policy...The policy shall clarify that acts of bullying, harassment, or intimidation that are conducted via electronic means need not occur during school hours, occur on school property, or involve school computers as long as the incident has an impact on the student or educational environment....If a school district has internet use policies, the act of bullying, harassing, or intimidating another student via online means shall be included as a prohibited act and be subject to disciplinary action.       ...As used in this section, "electronic" or "electronic means" means any communication where there is the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. "Electronic" and "electronic means" include, but are not limited to, communication via electronic mail, internet-based communications, pager service, cell phones, and electronic text messaging.

The above is from Washington State Legislator.  The blog Sound Politics notes that the bill was sponsored by three Democrats and a single Republican.  I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind the audience that the left supports freedom of controversial and unpopular speech, so long as that speech equates Bush with Hitler.  For normal speech between sane students, however, the legislature seems to think that government regulation is no big deal and that "cyberinsults" should be dealt with by police and school administrators rather than parents and an email filter.

Heartless Libertarian has the scoop on new gun control laws proposed in Washington State. There's some bad stuff here, including a clause requiring police approval of all handgun transfers. We call that registration and it leads to confiscation.

Fish or Man brings us this tale of a Washington State police officer being investigated. It seems they found pornography on his official laptop. Given the utterly lax security of windows, that in and of itself isn't necessarily evidence of anything improper. But after a 21-year-old woman complained she was being stalked, investigators checked for tapes from his patrol car... and found that the tapes for the traffic stop were missing. When they searched the officer's home, they found video editting equipment he was apparantly using to doctor the tapes from his patrol car.

The problem with surveilance of this type is that the people being surveiled are also the ones with access to the equipment and, thus, the capability to destroy or manufacture evidence. The use of camera equipment to monitor police behavior while on duty is a large improvement over nothing at all, but it won't actually stop anyone with enough time and presence of mind to plan ahead.

What's your best defense against a police officer intent on abusing his authority? A video camera that the officer can't control. The more abusive police have already caught on to this, and will do nasty things to people trying to photograph their actions if they think they can get away with it.

The governor of Washington is considering a bill that would make it illegal for retailers to sell or rent violent video and computer games to minors, Wired News reported April 30. Under the measure, store clerks and owners could face fines of up to $500 per incident for selling or renting violent games to anyone under age 18.

Even aside from the free speech issues, the cultural assault upon the warrior spirit isn't going to help anything. Repression never does. We need to teach self-control, self-reliance, and honor. These values will enable us to make the right choices about when violence is justified, and when it isn't.

Whitney Graves of Marysville would be 15 years old this year. Maybe playing soccer, probably dreaming about getting her learner's permit next year. But Whitney Graves was accidentally killed when a 10-year-old neighbor got hold of a gun more than six years ago. Still struggling for life is legislation that could make it less likely that another child will die the same way. It's been so long since the girl's death and so many legislative sessions have come and gone without passage of the safe firearms storage legislation that the bill no longer bears her name. Nonetheless, maybe this will be the year that legislators allow their concern for children's safety to override their fear of political fallout from passing any sort of gun legislation.

Gee, the media are dancing in blood again. Why am I not surprised?