Steve Irwin, the hugely popular Australian television personality and conservationist known as the “Crocodile Hunter,” was killed Monday by a stingray while filming off the Great Barrier Reef. He was 44.
Crikey. He had an interesting life and a good show. So long, Steve.
Go Vols.
Past coverage here. Kevin has the latest:
They can come in, steal your property, show no I.D., use a warrant that is so secret that the Sheriff could not see it, charge you with no crime, and then tell you, “we are keeping your property, and we will give/sell it to whomever we want.” If they do charge me (up to 5 years from now), and I win, will I get back my property that they sold/gave away to someone 5 years earlier? What do you think?
Remember, KT was raided. To date, no charges have been filed against them.
Haven’t had the meaning of the second amendment debate in a while? Well, go here. Via Jeff, who says she’s trying to defend the Second Amendment against some of her commenters. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go help her out. Be logical and reasonable.
U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, who has been heading the federal criminal probe into the fatal Big Dig tunnel collapse, was tapped by President George W. Bush yesterday as acting director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Sullivan, in Washington yesterday for the announcement, will not step down as U.S. Attorney when he assumes the new position heading the ATF, the agency charged with investigating and preventing illegal possession and trafficking of firearms, explosives, alcohol and tobacco.
Spokeswoman Christina DiIorio-Sterling said Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks “will act on (Sullivan’s) behalf” in Massachusetts while he takes on his new role in Washington.
…
In a statement, Sullivan said he was “excited about the challenges that lie ahead, and committed to fulfill the trust reflected in my appointment.”
“It is certainly an honor to be afforded the opportunity to work with the men and women law enforcement professionals of the Bureau, an agency that is known for its excellence and integrity,” Sullivan’s statement said.
Excellence and integrity? Would that be the flip-flops that endanger otherwise lawful gun owners; the squandered tax dollars; the kitten stomping; or agents testifying that the registry of NFA weapons is seriously deficient that you find excellent?
Here’s Sullivan’s bio.
Update: David Hardy:
I know nothing of him, but anyone interested in rising in MA politics is, for me, a source of worry in the firearms area.
Ayup.
Physical today. All fine, perfectly healthy. New doctor for me, seemed to be sharp. I had trouble looking him in the eye and having a conversation with him. I mean, how do you look a man in the eye who just took a long hard look at your pooper?
Dale Franks over at QandO bought himself an SKS. He also mounted a reflex sight on it, which I’ve never really seen on an SKS other than the side mounts. Looks sharp.
Not that I doubt the neo-libs are pro-gun, they just don’t seem to talk about it much.
Alright, Glenn Reynolds, we’re gonna fight. I’ve been plugging away at this blogging thing for, err, four years now. I don’t send you an email every time I post. In fact, I’ve probably only sent you about 10 or 15 emails total ever. And I do that when it’s something I think needs broad exposure. For example, I appreciate when you linked to my story on Barrett Rifles and media bias. I emailed you the link. Thanks. But most of the times you’ve linked here and driven some major traffic my way, it wasn’t because I asked you to (go ahead, search your email archives, I’ll wait) but because you saw it somewhere else. And I appreciate the 20 plus instalanches in my time blogging.
I don’t pester you. I don’t beg for the mighty insty link. In fact, barring some big to do, I don’t ask for links from anyone. I plug away, and my readers found me. But everytime I write something over at No Silence Here, you link to it. See, look.
Now, that’s cool and I appreciate being more widely read. But if you like me so much, would it kill you to read my blog. It’s here. You might find other stuff you like. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you like what you see enough over at No Silence Here to link to it but if you’d throw a link to my blog regularly, that’d be good too. I mean, maybe your readers are also libertarian-leaning, gun nuts with a penchant for politically incorrect dogs. And, well, I have to clean some posts up on occasion so they’re palatable to the Knoxville News Sentinel. You’re denying your readers the full uncle. You even said before you should link to me more often.
And Michael Silence, being the smarty pants he is, thinks this is funny. He always thanks me for the Instalanche.
Crossposted at No Silence Here.
Seems a gun is cheaper and always there:
The Lowrance family is far too familiar with Memphis crime.
“The neighborhood we were in previously, we were broken into five to six times,” says Collie Lowrance. “And yeah, it frustrates me.”
So Lowrance decided to pay $75 a month to hire private security to patrol past his home in the Belle Meade section of East Memphis.
“If there’s a problem,” he says, “the security gets here very quickly. Much quicker than police usually.”
In response to my post on Law Enforcement Against Prohibition‘s apparent support for gun control (see here), Allison from LEAP writes:
LEAP is a single issue organization. Every board member and supporting member of LEAP agrees on one thing: the drug war has proved a dismal failure leaving us with one solution: legalized regulation of all illicit substances. While I understand that it is tempting to conflate Mr. Stamper’s or any other LEAP Speaker’s personal opinions on certain issues with his or her vocal role in LEAP as an opponent of the drug war, it must be understood that there is a very opaque line between the two.
If a LEAP Speaker brings up gun control during a LEAP presentation he or she would be speaking out of turn. Mr. Stamper’s comments did not take place in the context of a LEAP presentation and therefore LEAP is not responsible for his opinions. LEAP simply does not have one cohesive stance on gun control. The official position of LEAP on gun control is that we have no official position on gun control.
Regarding the allegation that Mr. Stamper used his role in LEAP to further an independent agenda:
In this particular instance Norm did not, as you charge “use the position accorded to him by LEAP” to state his opinion on gun control, rather the status and experience that he has gained based on his own work afforded him the opportunity to have this particular op-ed syndicated in many newspapers and journals. Norm Stamper is a prolific writer on myriad topics, many of which have nothing to do with drug prohibition.
Regarding the allegation that a representative of an organization in any official capacity, is – by association – a representative in many other facets. It’s not a 9-to-5 job: This claim cannot necessarily be contested or denied. Sure, practically, we associate someone’s views with the organizations that they belong to. We also see someone committed to a particular issue that we identify with and naturally assume that this person’s views on all issues coincide with our views.
People will congregate under one umbrella issue but their viewpoints on other issues are likely to vary or be entirely disparate. Drug policy is certainly an issue within which people will arrive at the same conclusion by following very distinct paths; libertarians, conservatives, anarchists, communists and liberals alike fall under the drug reform umbrella. Our speakers are not elected officials representing an electorate. They are former members of law enforcement who disagree with the drug war for various reasons. They are resolute in their stance that prohibition must end to improve the current situation. Their opinions on other issues simply are not the prerogative of LEAP.
The bottom line is whether or not you feel that one speaker’s personal stance on gun control is reason enough to refuse support for an organization with a goal of affecting a broad social and economic policy.
Now the kidnapping and murder is already illegal. Another simple law will not stop bad people.
What will is a nice jacketed hollow point fired from a .357 magnum at close range
Balko says he would deceive to be on a jury to nullify a law. Patterico says:
I have said I would support jury nullification in extremely rare and desperate situations, where the fabric of our society was falling apart and our laws were inconsistent with basic humanity. For example, I would not convict someone of helping a slave escape his master. If we somehow passed a law making it illegal to be Arab, or Jewish, or black, or Mexican, I would not convict someone for that “crime.”
and:
Lying your way onto a jury isn’t the right way to fight these battles.
Well, in the event you see one of these extremely rare and desperate situations, how would one get on the jury without deceiving? After all, they’d be asked about it?
Would you, being the good sort of civic minded person you are, lie to get on a jury to challenge an unjust law? Even if the case was not extremely rare and desperate?
That’s a sticky situation. Sacrifice one set of principles for another?
Mayor Bloomberg has been hit with another lawsuit in connection with his campaign to crack down on illegal guns.
A South Carolina gun dealer became the second storeowner to sue after Mr. Bloomberg targeted it a few months ago in an undercover sting operation designed to stymie illegal gun sales.
The lawsuit, filed in South Carolina, seeks damages and claims that the city smeared the storeowner’s reputation.
No mention in the Sun about whether or not there’s mention in the suit of allegations of law-breaking on the part of Bloomy’s investigators. Bob Barr’s suit addresses that:
Bloomberg conspired with others named in the lawsuit to deceive Adventure Outdoors in order to falsely and fraudulently purchase a firearm. By doing so, the conspirators falsified an ATF form which is a clear violation of federal and Georgia laws. Furthermore, Bloomberg then released misleading statements to national news media, which damaged the reputation and business of Adventure Outdoors in this scheme to defame and violate the law.
In his statement, Barr expressed his confidence in a successful outcome for Adventure Outdoors and further stated that “Mayor Bloomberg’s and the other players’ actions were careless, willful and clearly illegal.
A second dealer has filed a counter-suit in his home state, a NY dealer they charged with criminal offenses had to be let off with disorderly conduct (in most states, about a minor a misdemeanor as they have), they seized guns from that dealer but had to return them, the city has settled with two on terms that have them audited by a special master (whom the city has to pay)… oh, and a third dealer now says he’s going to sue.
I’ve said before that:
And, by the way, California is one generation away from making all such weapons illegal:
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 12285(b), any person who obtains title to a registered assault weapon by bequest or intestate succession shall, within 90 days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer who has a permit from the Department of Justice to purchase assault weapons, obtain a permit from the Department of Justice to possess assault weapons, or remove the weapon from this state.
When someone with such a weapon dies, their heirs must destroy the weapon or sell it.
There is a willful effort in the state to disarm the law-abiding. Tam notes the recent efforts at microstamping serve to further that end:
With the passage of the “Microstamping” bill by the California state senate, gun ownership in California moves a microstep closer to death by a thousand cuts. The situation in the Granola State is a fascinating illustration on how civilian disarmament in this country could finally be effected.
Indeed. The good news:
California, seen as a progressive state by the victim disarmament crowd, is their test lab; the thin end of the wedge of laws they’d like to try elsewhere. Thus far it’s not working, not spreading to other states the way they’d like it to, but that doesn’t mean that gun owners elsewhere in America can stop watching that train wreck on the left coast; it contains lessons needed to stop our rights here from being derailed.
Sort of. This type stuff is big in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois (well, OK, Chicago). Interesting times to be a gun owner.
Seems people keep falling for the American Hunters and Shooters Association. This organization is as pro-gun as the Brady Campaign and the Million err Eight Mom March.
All you gun-owners out there would be well-advised to let your pro-gun friends know that.
What’s the cheapest place to get airline tickets? Trying to get to the Gun Blogger Rendezvous for as little as possible.
Constitutional rights are apparently tricky and complex, if the defendent is a police officer. A while back, I noted a case where some Illinois police officers were charged with illegal possession of machine guns. Here’s the latest:
Charges that an Illinois State Police sergeant illegally possessed a machine gun were dismissed Wednesday by a federal judge, who ruled that the law was “unconstitutionally vague” as applied to him.
In federal court in East St. Louis, U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon dropped the charges against Sgt. James V. Vest of O’Fallon, Ill., who was lead rifle instructor for the department’s District 11 in the Metro East area. Herndon’s 26-page order says the confusion is over the federal law’s exception for police officers, and whether Vest could reasonably be expected to know whether he was breaking the law.
Vest was one of four people, including two other Illinois state troopers, separately accused in January of illegally possessing machine guns. Such fully automatic weapons are banned by federal law except for certain uses, such as by the military and police agencies, or by people with a special license, which the four did not have.
But if this were a civilian, there’d be nothing vague. You’d be in jail for ten years and pay a $250K fine. More:
The case against Vest concerned an M-4 machine gun, essentially a short-barrel form of the standard M-16 military weapon, that he bought in 1998 and used in his state police training classes. The charges allege that he lacked authority from the state to buy or possess the weapon.
Vest argued that he bought and used it under the “law enforcement exception” in the federal law. Some police agencies have machine guns in their arsenals, particularly for their tactical teams.
Herndon noted that the prosecution never claimed that Vest ever used the M-4 for anything but official purposes. The judge said the government argued that a law enforcement agency, not a single police officer, has the authority to permit possession of a machine gun.
But Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in this instance to support the charges against Vest.
“How would a police officer/lead rifle instructor such as Vest ever know whether his possession of a machine gun or other prohibited weapon was legal, as there is no guidance under the (statute) as to what constitutes proper authority,” the judge wrote. “It does not appear that this statute was designed to criminalize police officers even if they may be guilty of mere technical violations.”
Given that Vest apparently used it only for law enforcement purposes, Herndon said, charging him “seems to go against the purpose” of the federal law.
The law is not vague. There is a legal and lawful manner for police agencies to obtain NFA weapons. And they’re tax exempt.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Update: At subguns, they have more:
Vest, a firearms instructor and former State Police Tactical Response Team or SWAT team leader, is accused of violating a federal law regulating automatic weapons. An indictment states Vest improperly ordered the M-16 in 1998 from a California supplier and then failed to register it with federal authorities. A prosecutor has said Vest used a fake state police letterhead to order the weapon that he paid for with his own money.
So, he forged documents to obtain his illegal weapon. That he bought with his own money.
KABA:
Statement from Mayor Bloomberg On Guilty Plea by Michael Spallone of Woodhaven Rifle and Pistol Range
“Strict enforcement of our local gun laws is critical in the fight against illegal guns. After undercover investigations revealed violations in sales practices at Woodhaven Rifle and Pistol Range, Inc., the gun dealer, Michael Spallone, today pled guilty to disorderly conduct and as a result will pay $1,000 in fines and restitution. In addition, his dealer’s license remains revoked by the NYPD. His guilty plea sends a strong message: any violation of the law that allows illegal guns to flow onto our streets will be vigorously pursued. If you break the law, you will pay the price. I thank Queens District Attorney Richard Brown … for recognizing that rigid enforcement of gun laws can help prevent the tragic consequences of gun violence.”
——-KABA Note: This is the gun dealer who initially refused to sell to Mayor Mike’s sting squad. They came back the next day with proper paperwork, but with a serial number transposed, and badgered him to make the sale, which he did, after checking with the Suffolk County Police who said it was okay. See the story here.
See past coverage here. Gun Owners of America doesn’t like it:
A Second Amendment group is warning gun owners that a “massive gun control bill” is now working its way through Congress — and is surprisingly close to becoming law.
Gun Owners of America also admits that it is the only national pro-gun group to oppose the “NICS Improvement Act of 2005” (H.R. 1415).
Introduced by gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, H.R. 1415 is intended to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which screens would-be gun buyers for mental problems or criminal convictions that would bar them from buying guns.
Most background checks are processed through NICS in seconds, but some are delayed if the FBI lacks complete, updated, and automated information from the states.
The bill notes that approximately 24 million criminal records are not automated or not accessible to NICS; and another 16 million criminal records are not up to date. Some lack information on whether an arrested person was convicted or acquitted, for example.
Many states have failed to computerize the necessary information and make it available to NICS in a “usable format,” and that’s what the McCarthy bill would address.
But Gun Owners of America warns that the bill would give the states hundreds of millions of dollars to “further prop up the unconstitutional Brady Law.” GOA argues that the federal government lacks the authority to conduct background checks on gun buyers under the Second and Tenth Amendments.
Seen at David Hardy’s, UN report proclaims self-defense is not a right:
“20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another. “
There’s more. Seems to me that protecting the right to life would be, err, a right.
Jeff wanted me to let you folks know that:
Could you let folks know (perhaps a quick post) that Hosting Matters moved Alphecca.com to a new server last night and totally fucked everything up. Files, index pages, archive folders, etc have disappeared. Hopefully they’re working on restoring it but in the meantime, all that comes up is a blank page.
Update: He’s back.
If I understand all this correctly, a senator (apparently Ted Stevens, who we by now all know is a total douche) can stop legislation all by his own self by placing a mysterious voodoo known as a secret hold on said piece of legislation.
I’m not up to date on all the hooey that governs senate rules but here’s an idea: Get off our asses and elect one Libertarian senator to the senate. Have him place secret holds on all legislation. We’ll call him Mr. No. He’ll put holds on everything. Stop passing stupid laws. Stop growing the government at a rate that is faster than the economy. Stop the growth of the bureaucracy.
Maybe those free-staters can get on that.
I’ve opined in the past that denying felons the right to vote or the right to arms opens up a whole can of worms. We’ll call it can of worms because if I call it slippery slope, someone will say that’s a fallacy. Then I’ll tell them to leave their high school debate team bullshit back in high school (see rule #4). The reason it’s a can of worms is because if we accept that we can deny felons those rights, why not limit others? After all, we may not want them assembling peaceably, because that could be gang activity. We may not want them to be free from self-incrimination because, well, they’ve obviously done something wrong before. We may want them to convert to Christianity because those who find religion are more likely to reform. Yes, those are ridiculous extremes and that is the point. Where do we as a society draw the line?
This brings up Sean Braisted who writes:
I have trouble comprehending people who think just because a person doesn’t have legal status in this country, they should have no legal rights whatsoever. If that were the case, than the Government could easily just strip legal immigrants/citizens of their citizenship, thus making the Government unaccountable to the laws. This notion that illegal immigrants are somehow less than human, and shouldn’t receive medical treatment or have any basic human rights, is just ludicrous.
I like Sean’s blog. He’s a smart guy and reasonable. But I asked a simple question:
So, should illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms? The right to vote?
Illegal immigrants cannot legally own a firearm (of course, they cannot legally be in the country either). In response to the first question, he answered:
As for Guns, unless they are members of a well regulated militia…well…you know the liberal position
Yes, and that position is total bullshit that is unsupported by any documents around at the time of the founding. And there is nothing to support the position without either making stuff up or disregarding the structure of the English language. So, for question two:
As for the right to vote, it is specifically limited to citizens of the United States.
Most matters regarding voting are left up to the states. The constitution doesn’t enumerate a right to vote specifically but mentions the right to vote. Determining those who can vote is generally up to the states:
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or sex. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the “most numerous branch” of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. This is precisely why so many amendments have been needed over time – the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld.
The amendments that do refer to the right to vote contain the phrase The right of citizens of the United States to vote . So, you know, he may have a legitimate out on that one.
Since Mr. Braisted believes in the fictitious collective right model of the second amendment (which says there’s no right at all and that the amendment doesn’t mean what it says) and thinks that the constitution grants the right to vote only to citizens, he’s avoided the question. Mind you, he thinks there is a right to health care and there is a right to being innocent until proven guilty, neither of which I can find guaranteed in my copy of the constitution. I’m not going to take his word for it since he ignores rights specifically enumerated. Getting Mr. Braisted to answer the question is like pulling teeth. Do we acknowledge that illegal immigrants can be denied rights or not? Or do we pick and choose which rights are restricted? Do we, for example, strip them of 5th amendment protections (though Mr. Braisted may or may not think that amendment means what it says it means) and deport them without due process of law?
Conversely, what if a State gave illegal immigrants the vote?
So, let’s try again. Mr. Braisted will not answer the question directly, so, dear reader, what are your thoughts?
Update: Publicola weighs in:
Most people reason that the enumeration of certain rights in the constitution are for the benefit of the citizens of this country. If you’re not a citizen or if you happen to be outside the country then the governmental gloves are off.
My take on things is that this is wrong. The constitution is a document which was designed to limit government as it was created, not grant protection from the almost almighty government to certain classes.
… my position has long been that if someone has proved themselves so dangerous to society they can’t be trusted with possession of a gun then they can’t be trusted with a can of gasoline and a book of matches either.
In inner Sydney, robberies with a firearm increased by 111 per cent over the last two years
This being San Francisco, and CNN being CNN, what did the link to the story at the CNN.com site say? That’s right: *SUV hits 14 people in 20-minute rampage, 1 dead.
Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that certain types of court awards are NOT income…..so what? Well, the implications could be far reaching. The IRS has, like all bureaucracies with broad powers, assumed that they are pretty much in charge of determining what is “income.” The IRS has always pretty much taken the stance that if it shows up in your bank account, they get a piece of it. The court said, in effect, back off.
Murphy argued that just as compensation for physical injuries only makes one whole after a loss, the same is true of awards for emotional distress. In short, it is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The appeals court agreed, ruling that Murphy’s award for emotional distress is not income and therefore not taxable.
I’m not sure what defines “bad” in this brave new world we live in, but the question has importance to me. Do you consider yourself a good person or a bad person?
Don’t answer yet! Otherwise I may have to hurt you.
I was reading an article about concealed carry in South Carolina and one line jumped out and it bothered me.
Over the past 10 years, South Carolina has become a much safer place to live, work and raise a family. Since the General Assembly wisely chose to allow good citizens to carry guns for self-defense, the violent crime rate has sharply declined. And although the mainstream news media largely avoid reporting such facts, the truth is more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime.
So are you “good”. Because if you are not. I may just be coming for you. The state government of South Carolina has implied that you cannot protect yourself effectively, or not at all, and that is good for “bad” people.
When the state decides who is good and bad then we are all categorized cattle.
Even “bad” people have the right to protect themselves from others. No matter what the state says
Q: What rights do you give up with a transferable?
A: Right to tell the wife she buys to much jewelry
For those not in the know, a transferable is a pre-86 machine gun. They are seriously overpriced. For example, this pre-86 M16A1 is listed at $13,750. The military buys new ones for about $700.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
