TriggerFinger

When your business is crisis management...

... then it becomes very tempting to invent a crisis. Governments do this a lot, because it works. That explicitly includes our present government (as admitted by Rahm "Never waste a crisis"). It explains global warming and gun control; both are artificial (and inflated) crises designed to transfer political power and money to those seeking to "solve" them.

See also, swine flu, avian flu, and the World Health Organization.

Mayors Against Guns

If you haven't already seen Sebastian's scoop on the secret plans of the Mayors Against Guns to implement stealth gun control, go read it now. The short version is that they plan to lobby a friendly administration for whatever gun control measures they can get by implementing rules changes, policy changes, or other administrative hurdles. They won't try for new legislation, because they are (correctly) afraid of the political backlash, but they will do their best behind the scenes to mess things up.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Remember when Bush's White House allegedly fired Department of Justice career prosecutors for political reasons, and how that was a huge scandal?

Obama's White House has allegedly transferred a Department of Justice career prosecutor in order to stifle criminal charges against the New Black Panther Party voting rights incident. You may remember that case as the one where two individuals in uniform and with police batons intimidated voters outside a polling place.

It's not conclusive proof of any wrongdoing, but it sure is suspicious.

I got the tip from John Lott's blog.

UPDATE: Big Lizards has a detailed post with the complete timeline.

If my doctor asked me about guns...

... in any context other than advising more hearing protection, I would find a new doctor. Thankfully, I've never had any issues with doctors trying to pry into my personal affairs like that. Presumably, it's one of the advantages of living in Texas.

However, I do occasionally see articles by misinformed physicians encouraging other doctors to ask their patients about guns, and try to give advice about gun safety. Such articles never fail to annoy me, but usually they are from doctors, to doctors, and heavily reliant on the arrogance of doctors who believe their expertise in one field extends to every area of human endeavor.

This is the first time I've seen a physician's assistant try to give advice about gun safety to other physician's assistants. I suppose that having no success with doctors capable of recognizing their lack of expertise means that the gun bigots have to try the next level down.

I would fisk the whole thing, but Bitter already has.

I don't know what to think about this one.

Remote controlled zombie deer fight poachers? Sure, people should follow the laws regulating hunting and only hunt deer in season. Not being much of a hunter myself I am not sure how much of a problem poaching usually is. But this sort of stunt strikes me as a waste of time and money if conducted by lawful authorities, and ... to be blunt... criminally insane if conducted by the sort of anti-hunting zealots I suspect are hiding behind the nice, friendly exterior of this operation.

Hunters wear the highly-human-visible orange for a reason, and if you're trying to hide from (never mind tackle!) a hunter, you're just asking for something tragic to happen by mistake.

Homicide rates linked to trust in government?

I figure that this article has hit on something that explains a lot. The basic idea is that the level of trust held by a populace in its government influences the murder rate in that society. When people trust their government and feel justice and respect can be obtained through the system without resorting to violence, murder rates are low. When the government is not responsive to the people, and is not trusted to deliver justice for its citizens, murder rates increase:

In his analysis, Roth found four factors that relate to the homicide rate in parts of the United States and western Europe throughout the past four centuries: the belief that one's government is stable and its justice and legal systems are unbiased and effective; a feeling of trust in government officials and a belief in their legitimacy; a sense of patriotism and solidarity with fellow citizens; and a belief that one's position is society is satisfactory and that one can command respect without resorting to violence.

When those feelings and beliefs are strong, homicide rates are generally low, regardless of the time or place, Roth said. But when people are unsure about their government leaders, don't feel connected to the rest of society, and feel they don't have opportunity to command respect in the community, homicide rates go up.

America has always distrusted its political leaders; we practically founded our nation on that principle. It's not likely to be something that can be fixed -- if it even should be -- by just electing the right person. Instead, what needs to happen is to elect leaders who will respect the rights of the people rather than advancing their own beliefs while disparaging the beliefs of others. That gives people confidence that their own lives are safe and won't be arbitrarily interfered with by government. That's a judgement not necessarily based on the system of government, but having a government that explicitly lacks the power to destroy its political opponents certainly helps a lot.

The "science" of climate change revealed

If you've been following the news (not necessarily the mainstream news) then you may have heard of a recent package of damaging data liberated from one of the major climate science research centers. I say "liberated" because it was supposedly released by a team of hackers who broke into the computer systems and collected the data. There are arguments about whether it may have been an internal leak trying to disguise the source. While the provenance of the data is somewhat questionable, official sources have confirmed that there was a data leak and so far have said there's too much data to verify whether or not it is real. That's a careful avoidance of saying it's faked, and it's a treasure trove of information about so-called scientists' efforts to stifle investigation and debate into the anthropogenic global warming myth.

So, without vouching for the data, or condoning the means by which it was obtained, I've put together a few links to sites that have done some careful examination of the data:

Assuming the data is mostly genuine, this seems like a classic case of whistleblowing. We have emails talking about how to avoid releasing their scientific data to reviewers, including how to avoid freedom of information act requests; how to hide a decline in the warming trend; how to avoid accounting for the inconvenient medieval warm period; the unreliability of tree ring data on which vast amounts of climate science is based... there's a lot there, and perhaps worst of all, the complete datasets from major articles that were being suppressed.

The emails are very damaging and will likely be career-ending for some of the people featured in them. The datasets, however, may well prove capable of destroying the entire global warming myth... simply by exposing their claims to real peer review.

UK implements Big Brother

In addition to police-monitored cameras all over the country, the government of Britain has decided to track every single user's internet usage. Data will be retained for a year and can be accessed without a warrant, simply by obtaining the authorization of a senior police officer or deputy head of department. Over 600 different government agencies will have access to this information, including police, local councils, and tax authorities.

Sigh. The death of privacy is complete.

Adoption and Guns

Should an adoption agency be able to consider whether a household has firearms as part of a decision on whether to allow adoption? The question has come to a head in Florida, where at least one agency is using forms that ask about firearms ownership as part of the adoption process.

This one strikes a little close to home for me because I was adopted. My adopted family did not have guns in the house while I was growing up, and I do not think that was a good thing. Obviously it doesn't determine the outcome of a child's life, but it's made my own interest in firearms more difficult to pursue -- and I had more opportunities than most kids in a home without firearms would have, because I encountered firearms in a controlled and positive environment outside of the home. Many others would have only negative experiences with guns in the absence of a family that can demonstrate positive gun ownership.

So what are the pros and cons of considering gun ownership in the adoption process? To start with, let's frame the question a little bit more. Kids are not only adopted as newborns; some are adopted significantly older than that, even potentially as teenagers. Some are adopted by strangers, others by family friends or relatives after the parents pass away. There's a broad spectrum of adoptees to consider, and many of those who are no longer newborns are not exactly angels either.

So, on the pro side:

Some children may not be responsible enough to handle firearms when adopted, through no fault of the adopting parents;
Some children may intentionally misuse firearms.
The adopting parents are taking an unknown factor into their home, and may not fully appreciate the necessary precautions.
The decision to allow an adoption is one where a great deal of discretion is present on many different factors. Gun ownership is by no means the only potentially discriminating factor.
There is some evidence that responsible use of legal firearms helps children to avoid other negative behaviors.

On the con side:

Asking about firearms ownership creates a registry of firearms in the possession of the government agencies charged with making that decision.
Asking about firearms is likely to strongly, and irrationally, prejudice the people making the decision whether to allow the adoption.
Making a gun-free home a prerequisite for adoption is likely to discourage an enumerated Constitutional right, even if such restrictions are not applied to a broad segment of the population.
Nothing that I know of prevents adoptive parents from acquiring a firearm after the adoption decision has been made.
The degree of scrutiny applied to potential adopting parents is almost certainly already sufficient to screen out felons, who are already prohibited from possessing firearms.

What it boils down to is simple. There are people who can be trusted with firearms, there are people who can't be trusted with firearms, and people move between those groups in both directions. Asking about gun ownership is not enough information (even if answered truthfully) to determine whether someone is a responsible gun owner, or whether a child is at particular risk for a bad outcome from being in a gun-owning home. Asking the question by itself (regardless of how the answer is handled) creates some negative consequences.

And it's all unnecessary, because we already have a societal proxy for responsible gun ownership. Quite simply, we treat felons (plus those convicted of domestic violence) as not being sufficiently responsible to own a gun; all other adults are considered responsible by default. The adoption process almost certainly checks for a criminal record already. Thus, we are already weeding out the "bad gun owners" earlier in the process, using a method which does not have privacy implications and does not impose a Constitutional right.

Because felons are already excluded, asking about firearms specifically during the adoption process can only lead to negative results. There is no positive benefit to asking about firearms in addition to checking for criminal background.

That should make the decision simple.

Embarassing.

So, after 10 days in office, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? I suppose for not being President Bush. He'll be the third person so far to receive the award for that reason -- after Al Gore and President Carter. It's truly a pity that the Nobel committee couldn't wait until there was at least a pretense of accomplishment. As it is, after 6 months without anything significant to show for it, the award is obviously without substance. The only thing that has been accomplished here is to dilute the meaning of an award that used to mean something.

Meanwhile, our President's advisors support sharia law that oppresses women, describing it as "gender justice":

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".
They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

More like enforced gender helplessness, it seems like. Personally I'm rather fond of the "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism". Who wouldn't be fond of freedom and wealth? Oh, wait... I think we just found out.

Alan Gura goes to bat before the Supremes again

The Supreme Court has chosen to hear McDonald v Chicago, a case I've been covering sporadically on this blog. The case is Alan Gura's carefully-planned incorporation case, and he's the genius behind the Heller case that forced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of an individual right to keep arms under the Second Amendment. This bodes well for our chances at a favorable ruling on the incorporation issue. The composition of the court has not changed much since Heller (the court has lost Souter, who dissented from Heller, and gained Sotomayor, who will likely vote against incorporation).

I've been quiet lately, I know.

Busy with other things. Feeling the ennui with activism topics, I feel like my energy is better spent elsewhere since the government mostly isn't listening. But the return of Total Information Awareness gets at least a mild reaction. This is the program started by Homeland Security to data-mine consumer datasets in search of "terrorists" that caused enough of a public outcry for the program to be canceled.

Supposedly canceled, anyway. As predicted, it was renamed and funded from different sources and didn't miss a beat. And it's already being used in domestic criminal investigations -- notably unrelated to terrorism. Data from car rental companies, hotel chains, and even department stores is being correlated.

This is exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

Have you noticed how the media is talking up right-wing extremism lately?

Noted without comment:

A notorious New Jersey hate blogger charged in June with threatening to kill judges and lawmakers was secretly an FBI "agent provocateur" paid to disseminate right-wing rhetoric, his attorney said Wednesday.
Hal Turner, the blogger and radio personality, remains jailed pending charges over his recent online rants, which prosecutors claim amounted to an invitation for someone to kill Connecticut lawmakers and Chicago federal appeals court judges.
But behind the scenes the reformed white supremacist was holding clandestine meetings with FBI agents who taught him how to spew hate "without crossing the line," according to his lawyer, Michael Orozco.

The Paranoid Center

Reason has an excellent (but lengthy) article on the return of the militia scare.

Mexican guns, again...

Some of us have wondered how the BATFE was so sure that American guns were being smuggled across the border into Mexico. It turns out, they were the ones doing the smuggling.

It used to be a common saying that in any political meeting with 3 members, one was from the FBI, one was from the BATFE, and the third person was an ordinary citizen telling everyone to calm down and stop talking about blowing things up. I see that's still true.

Where Great Britain Used To Be

It seems that even granting police dramatic stop-and-search powers doesn't prevent being mugged from being a part of everyday life. However, at least the stop-and-search powers are being abused in a racially balanced manner!

In case you missed it the first time...

... here's another article describing the Obama Administration's attempt to ban pocketknives.

Yes, really.

He's been politically blocked from going after guns, so why not go after knives? It's easier to slip that under the radar since there isn't an existing political infrastructure to defend it.

Prejudice and gun owners

A black man's tale of the prejudice he has experienced as a result of his interest in the shooting sports.

It's not what you think.

The Knife Ban is coming...

... possibly because Obama has been frustrated in his desire to ban guns. From the Volokh Conspiracy:

Under the 1958 federal Switchblade Act, switchblade knives are not importable into the United States, and may not be shipped across state lines. On May 21, U.S. Customs &Border Protection (CBP) proposed the revocation of four previous Ruling Letters; the effect would be a drastic expansion of the definition of non-importable knives. The organization KnifeRights warns that revocations would outlaw approximately 80 percent of the current market in knives.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say firearms... it just says arms. To me, that means knives are included. So far we have been lucky in that attempts at regulation have mostly been aimed at firearms, but if this rule change slips through the back door, that will no longer be true.

Credit where due

The Huffington Post features an article in favor of concealed carry reciprocity (because it prevents hate crimes). Shocking, but true. It features the bare bones of Tom Palmer's story (a gay man who defended himself from a homophobic attack with a handgun); some of you may remember that Palmer was one of the original plaintiffs in the Heller case.

I am all in favor of responsible adults being armed, including minorities who are arguably more at risk.

Alan Gura on the high stakes of DC's gun ban

This video is from Reason magazine's interview with Alan Gura, filmed shortly before the Heller decision was released. I'm including it here mainly for completeness, since I seem to have missed it when originally published.

Controlling the terms of the debate

It used to be that the anti-gun crowd could change the terms of the debate about guns at will. First it was "Saturday Night Specials", then "Assault Weapons", and so on... but today, in an article about a college denying free speech rights to a gun rights advocate, I saw this:

Opponents of concealed carry say there are relatively few students who are behind the movement. "What we're hearing is that they do not want guns on campus," said Chad Ramsey, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, a gun control advocate in Washington. "There is a smattering of Second Amendment activists out there. But I don't think there is a major grassroots effort among students -- I think most students have been advocating the other side of the fence."

Yes, that's a Brady Campaign spokesman referring to gun rights advocates as "Second Amendment activists" rather than "NRA shills" or "gun nuts" or "right-wing extremists."

Chicago Gun Case cert petition filed

Gura's Chicago Gun Case blog has posted his petition for certiori to the Supreme Court. The petition itself is here. Reading through it, I am again impressed with the very careful legal work of Alan Gura's team. As you may recall, the case which became Heller v DC at the Supreme Court level started out as Parker v DC -- but the case lost most of its plaintiffs to standing issues. The saving grace was that one of the plaintiffs had tried to register a handgun, and been denied. The NRA's sort-of-parallel case, Seegars, failed because none of its plaintiffs had taken that step.

The Chicago gun cases are similar. Gura has carefully lined up three plaintiffs who have actually been harmed by the ban. All three have attempted to register handguns and been denied. Two of them have also been denied the ability to register handguns they already possessed (Chicago requires that any firearm must be registered with the city before taking possession). Two of the plaintiffs own long arms, and are thus subject to the annual re-registration requirements; one of those plaintiffs had allowed his registration to lapse, which prohibits him from re-registering the firearm.

Additionally, one of the plaintiffs purchased a rifle through the Federal Civilian Marksmenship Program, which shipped the rifle directly to his home in Chicago. This prevents registration of that rifle in Chicago permanently, because of the requirement to register before taking possession. It also sets up an interesting tension between the government legally sending a rifle to a place where it is impossible to legally own it. That same resident tried to register the rifle, was denied, and appealed the denial administratively, and was denied again.

If that's not sufficient to ensure standing, nothing is.

Notably, the petition says:

The day after Petitioners filed their complaint, the National Rifle Association (?NRA?) and various individuals brought a separate challenge to the Chicago handgun ban, albeit not to the other provisions challenged by Petitioners. NRA also led a lawsuit challenging a similar handgun ban implemented by the Village of Oak Park, Illinois. It does not appear that the challenged provisions had been enforced against the NRA plaintiffs. This case, and the two NRA cases, were related in the District Court.

Normally, I'm all in favor of what the NRA does on the political side. They are a powerful force in politics. However, Gura's legal work seems much more thorough and carefully thought out, at least with regard to picking plaintiffs. I don't know why that is -- other than it's obviously very difficult to convince people to put themselves in legal jeopardy or draw official attention to challenge laws with significant criminal penalties.

I will be reading through the petition and posting more comments as I find things worth commenting on. For now, I will leave you with the reminder that we won't necessarily see this case before the Supreme Court; I think it's the best of the three cases we know of (Nordyke in the 9th circuit and Maloney in the 2nd circuit) but the Supreme Court could pick all of them, any of them, or none at all.

Can a 10 year old spot a terrorist?

Probably not, even after watching this training video... especially as the training video covers "extremist views" rather than terrorism. No doubt the kids will be turning in anyone who advocates that they defend themselves from the playground bully.

Boomershoot 2009: Joe to the rescue!

It's a bird! It's a plane! ... No, it's just Joe.

He's not actually riding to the rescue, either, but he certainly looks like it. Note the "propaganda corps" patch on his right arm.