Wednesday - March 12, 2008
DC to copy Boston’s Dumb Idea
A week before SCOTUS starts on Heller, Washington DC mayor Fenty announces that the city is going to enact it’s version of Boston’s “Safe Homes” plan. Fourth Amendment? We don’ need no steenkin Fourth Amendment!! That’s right, the DC plan, called the “Safe Homes Initiative” will have the local cops going door to door asking people if it’s Ok if they come in and search your house. No warrants. No Reasonable Cause. No reason at all, but they’ll ask nicely and say “pretty please”. In theory they’re only looking for illegal drugs and illegal firearms, and the whole thing is an “amnesty program”.
No word yet on whether these officers will be issued jackboots ahead of time. Is it true that all such “visits” will be conducted in the middle of the night?
Holly Shiite, we’ve become a police state. And there are people, thousands and thousands of people, who think this is a great idea.
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced several new initiatives today aimed at combating gun crimes, including one encouraging residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if the residents have illegal guns or drugs.
The “safe homes initiative” is aimed at residents, such as parents or guardians who know or suspect their children have guns in their home, who want to cooperate with police, Lanier said.
“If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it,” Lanier said. “But amnesty means amnesty. We’re trying to get guns and drugs off the street.”
All seized guns will be tested to see whether they have been used in criminal activity. If they have, police may initiate a criminal investigation, Lanier said.
The program will begin March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington, where officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes. It will then expand to other areas of the city.
In addition to the safe homes initiative, D.C. police are starting to hold monthly meetings with law enforcement partners to identify trends in gun-related crimes.
“We are not satisfied with the number of guns on the streets of the District of Columbia,” Fenty said.
This doesn’t seem like that big a story. But this is now the second city in the USA to enact such a plan in the last 4 months. That’s about the most frightening thing I’ve ever written. This isn’t an anti-gun initiative, it’s a Gestapo move against civil rights. I don’t care if your kid is a mess and you are the worst parent on the planet ... your kid; your problem. Deal. You do not let the cops play door-to-door daddy ever, because they’ll get used to that kind of power in one damned big hurry. Just say NO. Politely. Then close and bar the door. Then call your lawyer.
h/t to Ravenwood’s Universe
Posted by Drew458
on 03/12/2008 at 08:32 PM
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (7)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - March 05, 2008
IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO BE SOLD OUT ? STAY TUNED.
It’s 2:25am and I had insomnia. Just had to boot and do some things had nothin’ to do with blogging when I fell across this story.
The ppl were promised a referendum on this subject long ago. But when the powers that be found out that the people would vote no, they promptly backed off.
So, the politicians have voted and decided among themselves and other vested interests that they are qualified to think for the populous.
They will decide, in spite of promises, for the people.
I think this addresses the comments made by Dr. Jeff earlier on where this country is going.
MPs reject EU treaty referendum
MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to ratify the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.
The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes to 248 - a margin of 63.The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the treaty, signed by EU leaders last December.
Thirteen Lib Dem MPs rebelled against the party’s orders to abstain on the referendum vote, with three frontbench spokesmen resigning their posts.
MPs rejected the Conservative amendment to the EU (Amendment) Bill, but 29 Labour MPs supported it. Three Tories defied their party leadership.
Manifestos
All EU parliaments must ratify the treaty before it can come into force. The only country which has committed to a referendum is Ireland.
We hope that in this case the Lords will hold the government to their manifesto commitment
William Hague, Conservatives
Clegg revamp after rebellion
The three main UK political parties promised a public vote on the EU Constitution in their 2005 general election manifestos.
But the constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates later that year. The Lisbon Treaty was drawn up to replace it.
The government and the Lib Dems say the treaty does not have constitutional implications, so a referendum on it is not needed.
The government says most changes are minor and procedural and it has secured “opt-outs” where necessary.
Month-long debate
But the Conservatives, some Labour and Lib Dem MPs and the UK Independence Party among others, say that it is effectively the constitution under a different name - so there should be a referendum.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: “This treaty will now go to the House of Lords.
“It is convention that the House of Lords does not stand in the way of manifesto commitments. We hope that in this case the Lords will hold the government to their manifesto commitment.
“The Liberal Democrats’ position will once again be pivotal. We will see if they follow their three-line whip in the Commons to abstain.”
The Lib Dem leadership, which instead wants a referendum on whether the UK should stay within the EU, ordered its MPs to abstain in the Tory-led debate.
But 13 refused to do so, instead voting for a referendum on the treaty.
Scottish affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael, countryside spokesman Tim Farron and justice spokesman David Heath resigned from the Lib Dem frontbench team.
MPs have been debating the different elements of the treaty over the past month.
Posted by Drew458
on 03/05/2008 at 09:16 PM
Filed Under: • Government • Politics •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - March 04, 2008
Hurry Up Heller
A correct and sweeping decision in DC v Heller can’t happen fast enough!
In a benighted effort to disarm criminal gangs, NJ has passed Assembly Bill 339 out of committee and towards the Senate floor for a vote. Committee members approved the measure 5-1. The bill limits firearms permit holders, who have already passed a thorough background check, to purchasing only one handgun per month.
11
12
13 This bill regulates the sale and purchase of handguns by
14 prohibiting a person from purchasing more than one handgun in a
15 calendar month.
16 Under the provisions of the bill, the holder of a handgun
17 purchaser permit may buy only one gun in a calendar month. The
18 bill also prohibits licensed retail firearms dealers from knowingly
19 delivering more than one handgun to any particular person in a
20 calendar month.
21 A buyer or seller who violates the provisions of the bill would be
22 guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. Fourth degree crimes are
23 punishable by imprisonment of up to 18 months, a fine of up to
24 $10,000, or both.
The bill does not apply to rifles or shotguns. I guess NJ is happy and eager for it’s law abiding citizens to buy them dozens at a time.
Is this bill really necessary? How is this going to stop crime? The idea behind the bill is obvious, and rather insulting. The idea is that people are legally buying pistols in bulk quantities and then “losing” them or having them “stolen” shortly thereafter. The insult is that the government is making the assumption that anyone who purchases several handguns at a time is actually making a de facto straw purchase for criminals and then exploiting a legal loophole to avoid prosecution. Gee thanks NJ. Even after a county, state, and federal background search that proves I am neither a criminal nor a mental patient, the assumption is that I am a crook.
Given the media’s phobic attitude towards guns, is it even possible that one such “crime” has occurred and the story not become major headlines? Has there been a single prosecution of a straw purchase enacted through circumstances of false loss or theft? Not that I’ve heard and this is one of the things I listen very carefully for.
The other possible reasoning behind the bill is equally insulting. This is the Super Nanny concept that says I can own guns, but I can only own so many of a certain type or acquire them at a slow and careful rate. NJ doesn’t want me to get my hands on too many pistols at the same time. They’re probably afraid that they’ll metastasize into some sort of critical mass in my closet and go off on a shooting rampage all by themselves.
NJ bill 339
blurb from the NRA/ILA
Posted by Drew458
on 03/04/2008 at 09:39 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Monday - March 03, 2008
The state of RKBA in a nutshell
Kevin over at the Smallest Minority posts a whopper of an essay; Of Law And Sausages is a 13,000 word read worthy of Bill Whittle and worth the hour it takes to read. Believe it or not, this is tight writing. He could have easily made it twice as big.
Back in May of 2003 when I started this blog, I had just begun a months-long debate with an Irishman living in London. The topic of that debate, unsurprisingly, was the Second Amendment. During that debate he asked me a question: “(L)et’s say a liberal government came to power and wanted to ban gun ownership. It would not be able to, because of the Second Amendment, right?”
That’s the question, alright. When the Supreme Court takes up District of Columbia v. Heller (née Parker v. D.C.) in a few days, we may finally get an answer to it.
After starting out with a “state of the state” that shows the very flawed beliefs held today, he then goes on to investigate the Second, citing many examples of Original Intent, and shows how the evolution of gun control laws have developed, with each one standing on the shoulders of the fallacies built by previous legislation, from the original and legally proper, if not poorly reasoned, reaction of the Kentucky legislation to their loss in Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822, up through Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Cases, and all the way to DC v. Heller which the Supremes will start looking at in a few days.
So from the founding of a nation in which, according to Thomas Jefferson, it is a citizen’s “right and duty to be at all times armed,” a nation in which St. George Tucker understood that the constitution could not be used to “permit any prohibition of arms to the people,” a nation where in 1857 the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protected a right of citizens “to keep and carry arms wherever they went,” where in 1939 the Supreme Court ruled - not on a defendant’s membership in a militia, but on the suitability of his weapon for militia use, we reached the point where the right of individuals somehow became a right of the States - the famous shift from an “individual rights” understanding to a “collective rights” interpretation. Moreover, “no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use.” At least not in the Ninth Circuit (where I happen to live.)
The extinction of the right to arms was almost complete. The meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution was altered without the use of the Amendment process - merely by the repeated death-by-a-thousand-cuts judicial re-interpretation, and the power of stare decisis.
Now we reach today, and D.C. v. Heller. The city of Washington D.C., a Federal District under control of Congress and most emphatically not a “state,” passed what is essentially a complete ban on the possession of functional firearms by its (law-abiding) residents in 1975. Because Washington D.C. is not a state, the Cruikshank and Presser Supreme Court decisions do not have any influence - the Second Amendment applies directly to the city government. A lawsuit was brought against the city under the auspices that the gun ban violated the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Washington, and the case proceeded all the way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered one of the most important circuits in the Appeals Court system for its precedent-setting.
A three-judge panel voted 2-1 that the right to arms IS an individual one (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit) and that the laws in question DID violate the Second Amendment.
The City appealed to the Supreme Court. Cert. was granted. Oral arguments start in just a few days from now.
And we may finally get an answer to the question: “(L)et’s say a liberal government came to power and wanted to ban gun ownership. It would not be able to, because of the Second Amendment, right?”
This is a Most Excellent undertaking on his part. He draws no conclusions at the end, even though we all know what his views are, even though the errors made by poor and specious decisions in the past are readily apparent. I could not have resisted banging the podium in closing, but in truth it isn’t necessary. If you can understand the part of the Second Amendment that says “shall not be infringed” then you can spot the house of cards being built out of whole cloth over the generations. This reference quality piece of work is the best of what blogging can be; Kevin’s essay could just as well be used as an amicus curiae brief for Heller.
A true and proper decision on Heller will overturn 130 years of bogus laws and benighted decisions by the Supremes. Hold your breath. Anarchy and “the Wild West” will not be the result, but a bit of freedom and some honest governing could be. (see? I couldn’t resist giving the bully pulpit at least one whack)
Posted by Drew458
on 03/03/2008 at 03:43 PM
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - February 10, 2008
THE EU and ENGLISH SOVEREIGNTY, or Lack Thereof
I’ve been working on something else getting away from the usual stuff I bring here, when I found this only by accident today.
Small stuff I suppose to you folks back home, but it has to do with something called “sovereignty”, which many Brits believe they are in danger of losing.
And I think they’re right to worry.
I recall the blinding lights on the cars at home, in the desert in daylight, and could never see the logic in it. During daylight?
Also interesting that the govt. opposed the idea saying it would increase emmissions. That doesn’t seem right tho. How? Whatever.
The issue is sovereignty.
b>Daytime car lights to be mandatory
Last Updated: 1:15am GMT 10/02/2008All new cars are to be fitted with automatic daytime headlights within four years.
The Government previously opposed the idea on the grounds that using lights in the daytime would increase fuel consumption and emissions, but conceded it was unable to oppose European legislation.
The only way I know to interpret the above is, that whatever rule or reg. passed by the EU, becomes the law here in the UK. Someone, please tell me I’m wrong.
In response to a parliamentary question, Jim Fitzpatrick, the road safety minister, said: “The UK has been successful in arguing against the introduction of mandatory use of dipped headlamps during daylight hours by drivers of existing vehicles.
“However, from early 2011 all new types of passenger cars and light vans will have to be fitted with dedicated daytime running lamps in accordance with the relevant European directive. By summer 2012, all new vehicles will have to be so fitted.”
The move will anger motoring groups, which claim fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions increase by three per cent when drivers use dipped lights.
But the European Commission says that the lights increase fuel consumption by only 0.3 per cent because they use separate bulbs that are less bright than headlights.
The commission wants all European Union states to set a common date to make daytime running lights mandatory. About half of EU member states already require this.
http://tinyurl.com/34tlku
Posted by Drew458
on 02/10/2008 at 10:11 AM
Filed Under: • Government •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - February 05, 2008
terrorists rebranded, because ya see they really aren’t “terrorists at all.”
Oh I can’t wait to see the comments from you guys.
Islamist terrorists rebranded as ‘criminals’
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 1:54am GMT 05/02/2008Islamist terrorists have been rebranded as “criminals” in a new guidebook for ministers and civil servants to help them talk about terrorism without offending Muslims.
The book has been issued to all government departments and says that people should no longer refer to Islamist extremism or jihadi fundamentalism.Instead, they should refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.
It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a “confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures”.
Ministers have been using the new rhetoric for some time and no longer refer to the “war on terror”.
The guide states: “This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them.”
The guide was drawn up by the Research, Information and Communication Unit, a new “hearts and minds” outfit in the Home Office set up to counter al-Qa’eda’s efforts to manipulate individuals and groups.
In a speech on counter-terrorism last month, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, declared that violent extremism was “anti-Islamic”.
Posted by Drew458
on 02/05/2008 at 04:10 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Outrageous • RoPMA • Stoopid-People • Terrorists •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - January 24, 2008
ANOTHER FREEBE FROM THE NANNY STATE? WHY NOT? The Taxpayer has too damn much money anyway.
Check out the link and get a load (no pun) of the photograph but mostly, interesting letters from the citizens on the subject.
They’re talking about spending the equiv. of $100 BILLION on this.
Should fat people be paid to lose weight?Thursday, January 24, 2008
Daily TelegraphFat people will be offered cash incentives to lose weight and take exercise as part of a new Government strategy to tackle the obesity epidemic, which could ultimately cost the NHS £50bn a year to treat.
Employers will be encouraged to set up competitions with cash, vouchers and other rewards for people taking up a healthier lifestyle.
Similar schemes have worked in the US, while private medical insurance companies in Britain are already offering discounts to people who regularly go to the gym.
Should the overweight be paid to slim? Should employers monitor their employees’ fitness regimes?
What is the best way to encourage people to lead a healthier lifestyle?
Posted by Drew458
on 01/24/2008 at 06:42 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Health-Medicine •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - January 23, 2008
Stay involved in government and watch the bastards … every minute. - Allan C. Kelly
"Stay involved in government and watch the bastards in Washington every minute.” - Allan C. Kelly
The Skipper’s famous quote applies to the Several States as well. Keep your eyes open folks, always try to cut through the bullshit, and don’t buy what they tell you until you can prove it yourself. It’s an awful lot of work, but if you don’t, then there’s this old expression about “a new one born every minute” that could apply to you.
The blogosphere is often a circular thing. Information goes back and forth and around and around, and sometimes things just fall into place with a little added input from the readers. Such is the case with reader Bill, who commented on Geek With A .45’s posts the other day on that idiotic NJ electoral vote law. Thank you Bill, and thank you Mr. Geek, for keeping a cool head and using your brains. On the other hand, I posted in full RCOB mode, and damn but it felt good to do so!!
And thanks to Mr. C for bringing it to my attention. The blogosphere is a big place, so I don’t get to visit my favorite places every day.
pasted from Geek With a .45’s blog:
Quote: {emphasis mine}
-----------------
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State 5
of New Jersey:1. (New section) The State of New Jersey hereby enacts into
law and enters into the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the
President by National Popular Vote” as set forth in this section, and
substantially as follows:
-----------------From NJ’s new Electoral College law. (pdf), brought to my attention by the Barking Moonbat Early Warning System *.
and
Quote:
----------------
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, ...
----------------
US Constitution, Article I, section 10, brought to my attention by Reader Bill.
Reader Bill points out that the NJ law may be expressly unconstitutional. I’d like to believe that; I think it is too. However, you can expect the legislators to split legal hairs over this, since no other states are actually named, nor is any actual agreement signed. No, they just violate the spirit of the prohibition by making a law that says “when we see other states doing it, we’ll do it too.” So it looks to me like this NJ law, put in place to do an end run around the Constitution, has another Constitutional end run built right into it. Double duplicity? Not an amazing feat from the state that brought you Pay-To-Play and legalized Double Dipping for government pigs feasting at the taxpayer trough.
What say you? Is this an Agreement or not?
PS - I wonder if I’m a triple geek? I’m pretty sure I own 3 .45s if you limit “.45” to only mean firearms chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge. If you open that definition up to include any cartridge using bullets of that approximate diameter then my geek count goes up ... and up ...
Posted by Drew458
on 01/23/2008 at 12:36 PM
Filed Under: • Government •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Monday - January 21, 2008
IDIOT LUNACY AS USUAL BUT YA HAVE TO LAUGH
A couple of weeks ago I posted my story on the Health and Safety lunacy and it’s extremes here in the UK.
Well, here’s some more. It never ends.
Put away your arms, drama group is told
By Richard SavillLast Updated: 1:43am GMT 19/01/2008
A village amateur dramatic group performing Robinson Crusoe has had to tell police about the use of plastic swords because of health and safety fears.
The Carnon Downs Drama Group, at Perranwell, Cornwall, must lock up its two plastic cutlasses, six wooden swords and a toy gun when they are not in use and appoint a “responsible guardian” for them.The group said it informed police about the use of replica weapons after studying new health and safety guidelines and new legislation to crack down on violent crime.
Later this month, about 700 people are due to attend six performances of the group’s pantomime, featuring several swashbuckling sword fights A co-director, Linda Barker, said: “In some scenes pirates hit each other with frying pans and saucepan lids but there’s no problem with them."We have got several wooden and plastic swords, two plastic spears and a gun that cost £2 from a joke shop. But now we need to keep them locked away.
“The National Operatic and Drama Association said it supported the new policy because “it enables weapons to be used safely and legally in theatrical performances”.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/21/2008 at 12:15 PM
Filed Under: • Government • Health-Medicine • Insanity • Stoopid-People •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - January 19, 2008
Great, now I’m disenfranchized too.
Silly me, I don’t watch the local news much, or buy the local paper. I didn’t know the people of NJ have been disenfranchised from the presidential election for amost a week now. Did you know this? I didn’t hear anyone screaming. Maybe they’ll save me time, and save the GOP and DNC lots of money, by not even letting people vote. Why bother? Your vote no longer counts FOR ANYTHING in NJ.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009715449
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h8JVYDPMFc1086Y2nkxaLPCjM7wwD8TUNHSO2
you can find more coverage over at Kim’s and Geek’s.
NJ went and passed a law that says the state’s 15 electoral votes are going to be given to whatever presidential candidate gets the most votes nationwide.
Doesn’t matter who you voted for, doesn’t matter how the votes totalled in NJ. Whoever gets the most nationwide, gets all 15 NJ electoral votes.
And it’s completely legal - the Constitution gives states the power to cast their electoral votes any way they choose.
NJ joins MD, who already has this kind of law. Illinois is expected to follow shortly.
I guess this will be called the “me too” law. After all, being popular is all that people want right? What a friggin load of shit.
This horseshit law is brought to you by the morons at the National Popular Vote Movement, who are still pissed off about Al Gore losing the 2000 election even though he won the popular vote. They just can’t wrap their pinhead sized brains around the concept of the Electoral College, and refuse to see that it balances voting power among the states, and actually gives each individual voter the most relative power. Nope, uh uh, get rid of it, cuz my first grade teacher told me “one man, one vote” and that’s all I will ever know. Glue sniffing asshats.
Hey sports fans: The NY Yankees play the Boston Red Sox for the World Series. Baseball, best of 7 games, right?
The scores for the games are
game 1: NY 85 Boston 2
game 2: NY 3 Boston 8
game 3: NY 1 Boston 4
game 4: NY 1 Boston 2
game 5: NY 0 Boston 6
game 6: NY 1 Boston 4
game 7: NY 1 Boston 3
If you applied the NJ law to baseball, the Yankees have won the series. That’s what the Electoral College is all about: winning the most GAMES, not getting the most RUNS. It’s that simple.
You know how long this law will last? It will last until the day after NJ gives it’s 15 Electoral Votes to a Republican candidate, at which point the nanny-state pinkos who make up most of this indigo blue state will scream like raped apes at the top of their shrill little voices ... that THEY were disenfranchised. What a bunch of leftist fucktards.
UPDATE Maybe NJ is just screwing with me?
From the official synopsis of the law:
The agreement becomes effective only after it has been enacted by
enough states to collectively possess the majority of the electoral votes
required to decide a presidential win – currently 270 of the 538
electoral votes.
So in other words, NJ passes a law that won’t take effect unless most (in an Electoral sense) other states also pass such a law. Pussies. Too fearful to boldly stand behind their own legislation, Governor “Seatbelts” Corzine and his Korrupt Krew of Kleptocratstm don’t even have the balls to follow the lead of Maryland. Nope, they’ll just wait around until all the other cool kids are playing, then they’ll jump in. Once again, the most important thing in life is being popular. Scaredy little cow teats {udder cowards}.
By enactment, New Jersey joins the efforts in other States to
reform the current system of electing the president and vice president
of the United States, as supported by approximately 70% of all
Americans.
Yeah right, by replacing one “70%” system by another “70%” system (see above link to Geek With a .45). Or are they trying to say that 70% of all Americans feel that the EC should go bye-bye? Hey, 40% of that crowd of chowder chuckers think 9/11 was an inside job, and 32% are sure they’ve seen Elvis ... driving a UFO.
This agreement ensures that all states are competitive in
presidential elections, makes all votes important and equal, and
guarantees that the candidate who received the most popular votes
nationwide wins the presidency.
What bullshit. What it does, as expressly mentioned on the NPVM website linked above, is come up with a plan to “force” the candidates to come visit the state. Waa waa waa, we’re such diaper rash suffering little crack babies we’re incapable of watching a debate on TV, reading an article online, or perusing a newspaper. We have to have the candidates come visit us personally, or else we’ll hold our breath until we turn blue. Um wait, NJ already IS a blue state. Is that why?
“Makes all votes important and equal”. Eww, what’s this stuck to my shoe? It smells like more NJ Bullshit, and it is!! Currently, each state (and DC) gets 2 Electoral votes, and one more for each Congressman. Among the 10 most populus states (and NJ is wall to wall people), NJ actually has the 2nd lowest number of people per Elector Vote ... which means my vote in NJ counts a little bit more than some voter in California. So in the interests of “equality” NJ is downgrading the power of my vote. Gee, thanks a lot you lechers. In order to take back power from the eviil Federal Government by making a chicken-shit endrun around the Constitution, you’ve managed to give away the infinitesimal power advantage your citizens may have held compared to citizens of 8 other states. The other 41 state’s citizens already have more power, and they ain’t giving it up. Thanks again nitwits.
From the law itself:
(7) If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors
nominated in a member state in association with the national
popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state’s number
of electoral votes
This makes sense ... NJ puts in a clause to play CYA just in case they forget how to count all the way to 15. Holy shit.
, the presidential candidate on the presidential
slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner
shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that
state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall
certify the appointment of such nominees. The chief election
official of each member state shall immediately release to the public
all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or
obtained.
Yup, if the NJ folks are truly THAT FUCKING RETARDED, then somebody else should do the picking for them. Hell, somebody else should be wiping their asses for them, then putting them back in their little soft, white, padded, quiet rooms and carefully locking the doors as they leave.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/19/2008 at 11:38 PM
Filed Under: • Commies • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Government • Insanity • Politics •
• Comments (11)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Friday - January 18, 2008
the politics of fear, along with a big helping of BS
Get out your hip-boots folks, here it comes:
The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards - set by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in the new energy bill - will require vehicles to get 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and will add somewhere between $900 and $10,000 to the cost of buying a car, dependent upon which expert is consulted.
Bob Lutz, vice chairman at General Motors, predicts the highest increase per vehicle -between $4,000 and $10,000 - with the average about $6,000.
“No matter what the cost is - $900 or $9,000 - is the consumer willing to pay that much more or should they be forced to pay that much more because of a government mandate?” Kelsey Zahourek, federal affairs manager with Americans for Tax Reform, told Cybercast News Service.
In fact, Zahourek said, because the CAFE standards are a federal regulation, the cost to consumers is no different than a new tax.
“If the cost is incurred due to a government regulation, it’s just a hidden form of taxation,” Zahourek said.
“Like my colleague Sam Kazman likes to say, ‘CAFE kills,’” Ebell told Cybercast News Service. Ebell cited a 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences that examined the earlier CAFE standards imposed in the 1970s.
...
“It also noted that downsizing of vehicles in the 1970s and 1980s may have contributed to an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities (alone)” - a number that could add up to thousands more deaths on American highways under the new CAFE standards, Ebell said.
There could be other victims of the CAFE standards, said Ebell. The American men and women who work for automakers could face job cuts, a possibility that would be devastating in states like Michigan, which has the highest unemployment in the nation at 7.4 percent.
“It seems to me that when Congress says over and over again that they care about protecting American jobs and then pass something like this, I think they are being incredibly short-sighted,” Ebell said.
I’m not a fan of CAFE requirements. I’d much rather we exploit all the other energy sources we have and refuse to use. But if it has to be, then it has to be. It’s for The Chiiildrentm after all.
Original article here
Posted by Drew458
on 01/18/2008 at 03:17 PM
Filed Under: • Environment • Government • Motorvators •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - January 08, 2008
pissin into the wind
NJ went and passed the bill I wrote about yesterday, with only small modifications. Once again the state chips away at my freedoms. Well, let’s try writing some letters. Yeah, not only will they get read, they’ll make a difference. I’ll get an intelligent response from my Senator, and my words will cause the Governor to toss this bill in the garbage where it belongs. As if.
Dear Governor Corzine
Please do not sign bill S2470/A2602. There are major flaws in this piece of legislation. It is one more mostly useless gun law that will do nothing to deter criminal behavior, while making honest citizens paper criminals.
It is impossible to determine if any given cartridge is designed to be used only in a handgun, as this bill now reads, because almost every cartridge ever made has been chambered in both rifles and handguns.
Unless things have recently changed, the firearms ID card in some towns is very primitive and can easily be forged. New Jersey is a small state and it would be a short trip to PA or NY where anyone could buy as much ammunition as they want with no IDs necessary, or have an out of state friend mail them some. It is beyond simple to get hold of ammunition; this bill will not even slow the criminals down.
The application of this law is not made clearly in the bill as written. Given a criminal in possession of a box of bullets, there is no way to tell if it will applied once or 50 times for that possession.
The definition NJ is using for ammunition includes the component parts. As far as I can tell this bill would criminalize people who collect range brass - fired ammo - for recycling. That’s just wrong.
I support measures to reduce criminal violence, but I feel this bill is no more than showboating. It will do nothing to deter anyone, and will likely be plea-bargained away immediately. Please don’t add one more useless law to the books.
Dear Senator Lance, 23rd District;
Now that you have voted for Bill S2470/A2602 and it has passed:
How will this bill impact mail order ammunition companies operating in New Jersey? I noticed that New Jersey is using the Federal definition of ammunition, which includes the component parts as well - the primers, brass cases, bullets, and gunpowder. Thus this bill applies both to retailers who sell live ammunition and to those who sell ammunition components. Very few of these retailers have a shooting range right there in their store and rely on mail orders for a large percent of their income. Did you just put all these companies out of business?
Could you explain to me please how law enforcement agents will be able to discern that any given ammunition was “specifically designed to be used only in a handgun” as the final version of this bill requires? There are so many different models of cartridges available, and many of them that are usually thought of as handgun cartridges also have rifles in which they will work just fine. While I could give you dozens of cartridge models as examples, this is a fundamental error in the wording of the bill. Cartridges are designed, period. The market then chambers a variety of firearms for those cartridges and sees what sells. It has been this way for over 130 years. There are very very few cartridges that only exist as rifle chamberings, and just as few that only exist as handgun chamberings.
You might think this bill is going to make it harder for criminals to obtain ammunition. It is not. They can still take a short drive to PA, NY, or any other state and buy as much as they want without the need to show any identification or government permission slips, as this bill demands. Criminals with the smallest bit of imagination can find someone to mail them a box of ammo, and you can’t do a thing about that. It is not a crime to send ammunition through the mail in most other states. At best this bill would make receipt of that package a crime, and you will have a very hard time enforcing that.
The last time I saw a New Jersey Firearms ID card it was a simple small piece of blue cardstock bearing the name and address of the isuee, a printed number, and a signature. Are there now plans in the works to make the ID card as copy proof as the new NJ Driver’s License? Will every township and borough have to use the exact same ID format? I hope so, because the ID card I saw was so simple a small child could easily forge one. How many million dollars will such an improvement effort cost the taxpayer?
Lastly, the application of this bill is unclear to me. Will it be applied on a bullet by bullet basis? If you catch a criminal in possession of 10 live rounds, does that mean 10 violations of this bill or just one? Will attempting to purchase ammunition without the proper papers be a violation of this bill as well, or just possession? Since the definition of ammunition includes the component parts, and the price of metals is at an all time high, have you just made criminals out of people who pick up range brass for recycling? What about the people who have a small hobby business casting lead bullets? Are they now criminals as well?
I think this new bill has good intentions, but really only opens a can of worms and adds to the grey areas of firearms laws. I think passing it was both a mistake and a waste of time. All you have done is added one more minor crime that a criminal can be charged with, and since this bill specifies that it is a crime of the fourth degree I think the likelihood of this charge being plea-bargained away is nearly a guarantee.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/08/2008 at 12:30 PM
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Government •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - January 06, 2008
Tomorrow I could become a criminal
Tomorrow the New Jersey Senate is going to vote on bill S2470. This is another one of those bills that are supposed to reduce gang violence, but only do so by forcing yet another gun control law on the honest citizenry. It does not work, it has never worked, and it will never work. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.
NJ S2470 would make it a crime to purchase or possess ammunition unless you (the NJ resident) meet one or more of the following criteria:
- you possess a valid firearms purchaser ID card. (NJ makes you get this card before you buy a rifle or a shotgun)
- you possess a valid permit to purchase a handgun. (same as above, but for pistols)
- you possess a valid handgun carry permit. (yeah right. These things are made from hen’s teeth and are stored in the leprechaun’s pot o’ gold in the basement of the governor’s mansion)
- you possess a valid New Jersey hunting license
- you possess documentation that you are a cop or an armed federal agent
- you possess a Curios & Relics FFL (which means you are a dealer or collector of antique guns)
- you possess a regular FFL (which means you are a legal gun dealer)
Ok, that sort of looks like it makes sense. Ignoring the cops and the hunters for now, if you legally own a gun in the state then you have papers to prove it and you can buy ammunition. That should keep the crooks, cons, and gang-bangers from loading up their illegal guns. That has to cut down on crime and gun violence, right? ..... Only one little problem: it is entirely legal to own firearms in New Jersey and not have them registered, thus they have no paper trail. Registering your guns is your decision when you move to the state; you can do it, at $15 per gun, or you can decide not to do it. Take a look at the title of the form!
So if you legally owned guns before you moved to New Jersey and you brought them with you when you moved here, and you aren’t a cop or a fed, and you don’t hunt, and you chose not to register those guns as is your current legal right, and you haven’t bought any more guns while living in the state, and you aren’t a gun dealer of any kind, and you have some ammo for your guns, then if this bill passes you have just become a criminal and are subject to a $10,000 fine and up to 18 months in prison.
Think that’s a really big “if” with a whole lot of “and"s? It isn’t. Roughly 1 person in 3 owns a gun in this country, so it’s fair to say that roughly 1 person in 3 moving to NJ owns a gun and brought it with them. Most people are not cops or armed federal agents, and almost nobody is a gun dealer (out of 300 million people in the population, there are only about 65,000 gun dealers - a mere 0.0216%). About 15% of gun owners go hunting. So roughly 85% of 1/3 of the approximately 20,000 people a year who move to the state could become criminals overnight if this bill passes. Going back 10 years, that’s 57,000 people. I am one of them.
Hey, what about out of state purchasers? Is it now going to become a crime for Pennsylvania and New York citizens to drive over to Joisey for a quick box of bullets? What about NJ based mail order companies that sell ammo? I’m sure there’s at least one, right? Would this bill put them out of business?
This is another dumb-ass bit of gun control legislation brought to you by America’s Most Active East Coast Socialiststm eager to “prevent crime”. But this time, for me, it’s personal.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/06/2008 at 07:31 PM
Filed Under: • Government •
• Comments (7)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - December 16, 2007
And then there was one … because it’s the only one that we really have almost no need for.
On this anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the Cato Institute takes a look at the smoldering remains of a thing called Freedom.
Here’s the CliffNotes version ...
1st: Free speech and religion. McCain-Fiengold. What more needs to be said, except that this misguided fool is running for President, again. For religion, it’s Ok for Santeria to sacrifice animals, and of course Islam is the Religion of Peace, but God help you if put up a manger scene in a public park, or wish people a Merry Christmas if you work retail.
2nd: Keep and Bear Arms. How many thousand gun laws do we have by now? 60, 70 thousand? I’m so glad people understand the word “infringed” or else we’d really have a lot of gun laws. But hey, they’re all just “reasonable restrictions”, right?
3rd: Quarter soldiers in your house. Woo hoo, this one’s solid. Just one case in our entire national history, Engblom v. Carey, and the justices found that this right extends even further than originally written!
4th: Unreasonable search and seizure. Combine the militarization of most police departments with “no knock” warrents and you get a big mess, usually involving stormtroopers wearing jackboots. Remember Elian Gonzales?
5th: Private property. Kelo v New London. What more can even be said? If I’m the government, what’s yours is mine if I can sell it to someone who can use it to generate more tax dollars than you do.
6th: Speedy public trial and an impartial jury. Rather weakened ... Plea bargaining deals - plead guilty to the little rap, because if you go to trial we’ll turn the world inside out to screw you.
7th: Right to trial by jury. So-so at best. Who needs a trial when the gov can slam you with huge fines without one? Cato Institute points out that the government can lay some mighty heavy fines on you without any trial (I’m thinking the IRS and perhaps ATFE) but I’m not sure that argument is a best fit to this Amendment. OTOH, look up the details of the “Lautenberg Amendment” if you gunnies don’t already know the words by heart.
8th: Cruel and unusual punishments abound. Excessive punishments certainly do. Look at the penalties for crack vs cocaine. At the other end of the spectrum, look at the shenanigans going on over the death penalty. Even lethal injection is thought to “cause too much suffering”. Cato thinks denying the deathly ill experimental drugs is a violation of the 8th, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
9th: You have other rights than the ones here, even if they’re not written down. Yeah right. We seem to have a federal agency and a book full of laws for every single aspect of our lives, from what we breath, eat, drink, wear, sleep on, ride in, live in, buy, build, and even say. Not to mention how we run our lives, how we earn our money, how and what we teach our children. Government is total; what unenumerated rights are left for the people?
10th: What the feds don’t get the states and the people do. Wanna bet? The States don’t have it much better than the People. Seems to me that the federal government has been grabbing everything they could since the end of the Civil War. Certainly since FDR was in office. Still, the states go out of their way to impose their crap on their citizens, just in case the feds missed anything. And if the States miss anything, we always have county and town level governments, and even the micro-government of condo associations to fill in the gaps. So please, name me the powers reserved for the people, please.
Posted by Drew458
on 12/16/2007 at 11:40 AM
Filed Under: • Government •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
Once Again, The One And Only Post
(4 total trackbacks)
Tracked at iHaan.org
Thｅ advantage to having a guide with you is thɑt an expert will haѵe very first hand experience dealing and navigating the river with гegional wildlife. Tһomas, there are great…
On: 07/28/23 10:37
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at head to the Momarms site
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We’ve Been Waiting For
On: 03/14/23 11:20
Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造，北京名传天下配音公司
专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作，北京名传天下配音公司 北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月，是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司，幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位，可供给一流的外语配音，长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台，能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话：010-83265555 北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00
meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
[...] RTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPL [...]
On: 07/17/17 04:28
a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07
DISCLAIMER
THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.
Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.
Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
