So long as the technology is voluntary..

A Geek With Guns argues for smart gun technology:

The idea behind smart guns isn’t inherently bad. There are even valid reasons to want a firearm that cannot be fired by anybody by yourself. Instead of fearing future firearm technology we should be embracing it. So long as the technology is voluntary there is no reason to oppose it or try to drum up unnecessary fear of the technology. Making arguments against laws that mandate any firearm technology is certainly appropriate but making arguments against the technology itself is, in my not so humble opinion, short sighted.

The problem, of course, is that governments want desperately to make smart guns mandatory.

If the military or police want to pay 5 times the price of a standard handgun to buy an anemic .22lr handgun that stops working when the battery runs out, can't be shared between combatants or even between hands in a battle, has reliability certain to be worse than firearms without the technology, is certainly vulnerable to hacking and jamming, and doesn't actually offer any nifty friendly-fire features yet, they are welcome to do so.

The price alone will ensure that any individual without a personal armorer from Q branch will never even consider buying one. And that is the free market speaking.

FCC scandal has similarities to the IRS, NSA scandals

We're starting to see a serious pattern emerge:

Last week, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai disclosed the existence of the FCC's new "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs", a study that would send FCC researchers (monitors?) into newsrooms across the nation to determine, among other things, whether news organizations are meeting citizens "actual" as opposed to "perceived" information needs. As designed, the study empowers researchers to not only ask a series of questions of news staff, it also provides (in pages 10 and 11) advice for gaining access to employees even when broadcasters and their Human Resources refuse to provide confidential employee information. The Obama administration FCC is abusing its regulatory authority by attempting to discern the inner workings of American newsrooms.

The bottom line is, the Obama administration wants inside information on how its political opponents structure and finance their operations. The administration has shown no hesitation in collecting the data in secret, passing it to political allies outside the administration, and making use of it in ways that are, frankly, Orwellian. Even if they are backing off of the FCC study for now, it remains a part of the pattern.

Bear in mind that some of the targeted groups faced inquisition from not only the IRS but also OSHA, FBI, BATFE, and others.

What organization could coordinate targeting activities across so many different agencies?

Only the White House... which continues to assert executive privilege and stonewall the investigation.

More details about the Stringray device in Florida

I reported previously about a case in Florida where police used a Stringray cell-phone tower simulator to track a stolen cell phone without a warrant, and then refused to explain how they had tracked down the thief -- eventually claiming that a non-disclosure agreement with the company would not allow them to explain, as if that agreement trumped the constitutional rights of the accused -- never mind the constitutional rights of everyone else within range of the fake tower.

Wired has published more details about that case, and their report indicates that the police have used the device more than 200 times without a warrant in Florida and without even informing the judge.

Texas Judge strikes down amendment to Texas Constitution prohibiting gay marriage

I am shocked. Flabbergasted. And not a little scared for the rule of law.

A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, ruling that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the United States Constitution and handing gay-rights advocates a major legal victory in one of the nation’s biggest and most conservative states.

The judge wrote that the amendment to the state Constitution that Texas voters approved in 2005 defining marriage as between a man and a woman — and two similar laws passed in 1997 and 2003 — denied gay couples the right to marry and demeaned their dignity “for no legitimate reason.”

“Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,” wrote Judge Orlando L. Garcia of United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, in San Antonio.

I have nothing against two men or two women spending their lives together and doing in the privacy of their homes whatever they want to do. If they want to have a commitment ceremony and can find someone willing to officiate it, that's fine too, and they can call themselves husband and husband, or wife and wife, or cottage cheese and cottage cheese for all I care.

Democratic mayors to issue grades for gun manufacturers on gun control

I'm not entirely sure what the point is here. I can only parse it as an attack on free speech with public money.

Members of the National Conference of Democratic Mayors have announced their decision to issue a grade for gun manufacturers on how well they address issues of public safety with firearms and ammunition. Depending on the support of gun control proposals given by the Obama administration, in particular, universal background checks, “assault” weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, the group of mayors stated that they may take their business, meaning the money they spend on law enforcement weaponry, elsewhere.

Manufacturers won't refuse to manufacture "assault weapons" or standard capacity magazines because of pressure like this because law enforcement buys a lot of both. They have nothing to do with background checks, universal or otherwise; those are handled at the retail level. So we are left with the Left threatening not to buy guns for their police forces from manufacturers who speak out in opposition to gun control.

I don't know how government procurement policies work, but aren't there some first amendment issues here?

Defining the reach of Heller and McDonald

Dave Kopel talks about how First Amendment law impacts the interpretation of Second Amendment cases.

Gun control in Obama's budget

The devil is in the details.

Supports the “Now is the Time” initiative, the President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence through improved background checks by the FBI and improved data via the National Criminal History Improvement Program, inspections of Federally-licensed firearms dealers, improved tracing and ballis­tics analysis, and efforts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. The Budget provides training for State and local law enforcement to prevent and respond to active shooters and prevent mass casualties, invests in programs to identify mental health issues early and continues the Comprehensive School Safety Program and other initiatives to enhance school security.

Probably the details about improved background checks, identifying mental health issues early, and improved ballistics analysis.

But it's in an Obama budget, which hopefully means it will have less legal effect than a unicorn fart.

A letter to the editor

Some people just don't think things through:

On another matter, those people owning assault rifles, and the National Rifle Association, which defends them, completely ignore the first part of the Second Amendment, which starts out, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary...” Let’s face it, assault-weapon owners are neither well-regulated nor necessary. We have the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, state police, county police, city and town police who are all looking out for our welfare.

... and when they stop looking out for our welfare, and begin to look out for their own? What will we do then?

Iowa refers 80 cases of voter fraud for prosecution

80 votes can swing a close race, especially on the state or local level. More importantly, though, there's no certainty that those 80 cases are the only ones that actually happened. They are only those that were detected and enough evidence was found to consider prosecution.

Well, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation disagrees. Not a state known for its hateful politics, Iowa’s DCI wrapped up its investigation this month and has referred more than 80 cases of voter fraud to county attorneys for possible prosecution. Since the investigation was initiated by GOP Secretary of State Matt Schultz a year and a half ago, five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges.

How many illegal votes were not found?

It's not the individual cases of voter fraud that bother me. It's not the occasional person who votes early and on election day by accident. It's the systematic attempts to corrupt the process.

I don't know what to make of this one

See if you can spot the problems:

James was arrested a short time later, and was found to be in possession of a fully loaded assault rifle and hollow point bullets. James is being charged with possession of an assault weapon and a large capacity magazine, as well as possession of armor-penetrating ammunition.

• An "assault rifle" is a machine gun...


• ... but an "assault weapon" is semiautomatic. Which was it?


• He was changed with possessing armor-penetrating ammunition...


• ... but any rifle ammunition will penetrate a protective vest without an armor plate, generally found only on military body armor...


• ... and they said he had hollow points, which are pretty much the opposite of armor piercing in design intent.

Connecticut gun laws working really well!

Look how well they are working!

A Conlon Street man is being held on $1 million bond after being found in possession of two illegal assault weapons, police said.

A million dollars in bail money. That's a lot for two paperwork crimes.

Charles Wandlaincourt, 35, of 9 Conlon St., was arrested Friday after authorities executed a search warrant at his apartment and seized two AR15 automatic assault rifles, police said.

I'm betting they are semi-auto AR-15 rifles, not machine guns.

He was charged with two counts of illegal possession of an assault weapon, two counts of theft of a firearm and two counts of illegal sale or transfer of an assault weapon. Police said they believe the rifles were part of a burglary last year in Farmington in which seven guns were reported stolen.

So not only did he possess two freshly-illegal assault weapons without registering them, he stole them from their lawful owner, and sold some of the guns he stole to someone else who for all we know still has them.

Authorities said they had found the weapons during an unrelated narcotics search and seizure on Feb. 19, which led to the warrant that they executed Friday.

So they found the weapons because of a drug investigation, not because of a gun registry.

Wandlaincourt’s criminal history includes a possession of narcotics conviction in 2012 for which he received 30 days in prison, as well as fifth-degree larceny conviction in 2010 for which he received six months in prison. He also pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in 2007 and was sentenced to 16 months in prison.

AND he was a felon already, so possession of any firearm -- assault or otherwise -- was prohibited.

Now, can anyone tell me how Connecticut's new assault weapon registration law could have prevented any of this?

Electronic Arts bans assault weapons in Battlefield 4

Supposedly it's only a bug. I wonder if Moms Demand Action have been pressuring them lately?

Felony charge for throwing a snowball

If you throw a snowball at a cop, be prepared to become a felon:

Hanging a felony charge on a kid for snowball throwing is not only completely absurd, it has a much greater chance of converting him to a criminal than his cop-targeting snowball throwing does. Way to go, law enforcement (and enablers like Ray Fields): you're generating scofflaws just as fast as you can trump up charges against them.

And once you are a felon, you won't be able to obtain employment at any job more important than washing dishes. For the rest of your life. Which strikes me as a much more significant cause of becoming a criminal than being allowed to throw snowballs without being punished.

Holder has recently announced his desire to restore the voting rights of felons. It seems to me that this is a stupid idea. We should instead make an effort to ensure that ordinary people do not become felons for throwing snowballs.

Republicans pushing confiscation in Wisconsin?

If you believe the Badget-Herald, Democrats want universal background checks and Republicans want confiscation.

Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation that would establish a legal process to confiscate firearms from individuals who have had domestic restraining orders filed against them. A Senate public safety committee approved the bill unanimously Thursday.

That's unusual, but a little more research shows the truth:

Police and sheriffs' departments are teaming up with the Department of Justice to change a state law that prohibits them from performing the same mental health background checks a gun dealer does at a sale. At issue is returning weapons to people convicted of domestic violence.

Ah, so they want to do a background check before returning the firearms. That's better than what Maryland wants to do, but I still have concerns. And then there's what the Democrats want to do:

... But Democrats are pushing for even stronger measures.

Under current Wisconsin law, only federally licensed firearm dealers require background checks, but private and gun show sales have no such requirement. The bill, introduced by Democrats with 16,500 signatures from individuals across the state, would create universal background checks for all firearm purchases in Wisconsin.

They just want their registration list.

Confiscation on the agenda in Maryland

Maryland is considering legislation to link their gun registry to their criminal database. They claim to expect approximately 10% of their existing registered gun owners would be disqualified by this check, with about 1% per year ongoing. I don't know what they are using to base their estimates on, but 10% sounds like a hugely high number when you consider that these individuals have chosen to register their firearms despite having a disqualifying criminal record.

Worse, they want 7 more full-time "troopers" (not police officers, peace officers, law enforcement officers... "troopers") to enforce the law and take guns away from their owners by force.

Targeting people already convicted of disqualifying crimes puts them on firmer legal ground than many of the alternatives. But sending troopers out to confiscate them is playing with fire.

Lott outlines the flaws in Missouri gun control study

I remember wondering why Missouri when the study was being hyped:

"There is a lot of arbitrary cherry-picking of the data," said John R. Lott Jr., president of Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization that studies the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety. "Other research that looked at all the states, not just one, comes to a different conclusion."

Obviously, because that's the state that gives them the result they wanted.

Smart gun legislation

This probably isn't going anywhere; hail mary gun control legislation is introduced regularly with no real chance of passage and doesn't usually get any media attention. But it is nonetheless a useful window into the sort of laws anti-self-defense politicians would like to see.

Sen. Edward Markey has unveiled a gun control bill he says will help reduce firearm violence by requiring all new guns be "personalized" with special features, such as fingerprint-reading technology, so they can only be fired by their owners or other authorized users.

The reason this particular bill is being introduced now is that a company is finally trying to bring a so-called "smart gun" to market. The Armatix iP1 is fatally flawed as a gun design, however, even more than the fundamental flaws in the idea itself. To put it bluntly, a .22lr handgun tied to a watch (both of which run on batteries) that requires entering a four-digit PIN before firing as well as keeping the watch within 10 inches of the gun in order to fire... well, suffice it to say that I think this is likely to get people killed when a normal handgun might have saved their life.

Also, no knowledgeable person shopping for a self-defense firearm will ever buy one. This is a product without a market... which is why they need to create the market with legislation.

South Carolina State Senator Larry Martin is anti-gun

A mini-biography of the man explains why:

Martin’s goal wasn’t to bring a committed conservative world and life view into the political sphere of influence. It was to be involved in politics, and in order to continue to do that he had to switch party affiliations. He has brought his progressive views to bear on the proposed gun law. He is recorded as saying “You can carry a weapon openly if this bill is adopted and I’m offended by that.”

Those of you in South Carolina, remember him in 2016.

Domestic spying on political leaders

America's intelligence agencies have gone rogue:

The agency’s inspector general began the inquiry partly as a response to complaints from members of Congress that C.I.A. employees were improperly monitoring the work of staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to government officials with knowledge of the investigation.

The committee has spent several years working on a voluminous report about the detention and interrogation program, and according to one official interviewed in recent days, C.I.A. officers went as far as gaining access to computer networks used by the committee to carry out its investigation.

And Obama knew about it:

A leading US senator has said that President Obama knew of an “unprecedented action” taken by the CIA against the Senate intelligence committee, which has apparently prompted an inspector general’s inquiry at Langley.

Another investigation to investigate the intelligence community spying on the committee investigating it. Endless investigations do nothing to stop the problem. Heads must roll, or at least be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.

This is a modern version of J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO. We cannot allow our spies, or our President, to run our government by blackmail and intimidation.

Peruta case stayed pending appeal

Following the California AG's attempt to intervene on appeal, the case has been stayed. This leaves us in an odd situation. The original decision struck down "good cause" requirements for concealed carry in San Diego County, California on 2nd Amendment grounds. The sheriff bringing the case declined to appeal and chose to start issuing licenses without that requirement instead. Then the California Attorney General sought to intervene in the case in order to appeal the decision.

Her attempt to intervene is what brought about the stay, which is basically saying "Let's everyone hold on and don't do anything about this decision until appeal courts rule on it." (Also contributing may have been the mad rush to apply for concealed carry permits in that county.)

Except that a stay generally applies to courts and parties about actions the courts have compelled them to do. In this case, the sheriff in charge of issuing licenses wasn't seeking to appeal, having chosen instead to voluntarily comply with the decision. So even with the stay in place, he could choose to continue issuing licenses to people treating "self defense" as "good cause". And if he does, there's no case or controversy left, in addition to the standing problems with the Attorney General not being a party to the case by her own requests to the court.

I don't think that the AG's attempt to intervene will be successful. There are too many arguments against it. But this is the 9th Circuit; if they really want to take the issue up with a full en banc panel rather than a three-judge panel, they can find a way.

In the meantime, though, the decision is already being treated as binding precedent and bringing victories.

A comedy of errors... or is it?

Anyone paying attention to the continuing saga of Obamacare delays, failures, waivers, and general chaos has noticed that the law does not seem to be working very well. Or at all. Yet Obama has reacted to each new failure with grace and a new waiver to fix the problem, or at least paper it over. It was almost like he didn't mind that Obamacare wasn't working. I mean, sure, it's embarrassing when the website is completely broken for months after it is supposed to be running, but aside from that, nothing phased Obama in the least.

When I thought about it, I realized why.

As a person, Obama really does not care about Obamacare. Sure, it's nice to be the guy who delivered the Dem holy grail, but he would really rather be golfing than administering a fully-functional, Congressionally-fixed battlestation Obamacare.

But an incomplete battlestation, that has possibilities. To quote Ayn Rand for a moment:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Obamacare is insufferable, insupportable. Anyone who spends the thousands of hours (and hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for experts) to understand the law quickly comes to realize that it cannot be obeyed; it is too large and too incomprehensible, and the parts that can be comprehended cost far too much. And then Obama comes by and offers a waiver, just for a few years while the economy recovers...

If the law is changed, it is changed for everyone, and Obama's ability to offer waivers to his friends goes away. So does his ability to waive the Obamacare penalties if you include a signed statement, under penalty of perjury, that you did not make business decisions to avoid Obamacare costs.

Because if you sign and campaign against Obamacare, you're vulnerable to perjury charges; if you don't sign and don't pay, tax charges; and if you don't sign and do pay, you're feeding the beast and your competitors who do go along with Obama's plan are paying significantly less per employee.

If what Obama wants is power, he wants Obamacare to stay broken, so he can issue waivers and wield power, until Republicans are in office to "fix" it. Once "fixed" and no more waivers are issued, the economy will crash under the unsustainable burden, and the Republicans will be blamed. But only after he is out of office.

Facebook to age-restrict pages about firearms

aka, Why I host my own blog, part gazillion.

There's also something about user reports of firearms sales posts generating a message to the seller about following local laws when selling firearms, which of course is rather pointless -- Facebook isn't actually selling anything, and what two people do when they meet in person to exchange the firearm is up to them and a reminder to follow local laws is unlikely to make a different once way or another even if the local laws do require a background check for private sales.

Honest, law-abiding citizens will follow the law -- whatever law applies to them in their state -- and criminals won't. Nothing facebook does can change that. But it can make firearms seem a taboo subject for growing children, which may make them less likely to understand and participate in the healthy gun culture.

In short, this is another case of gun control forces demanding we all agree with them that guns are icky and bad. Sorry, I won't.

Lerner pleads the 5th, again

While Lerner did appear at the hearing today, it was only to plead the 5th again. The hearing lasted about 15 minutes, and Rep Elijah Cummings ended up shouting into a dead mic when Issa adjourned.

It should be noted that Cummings was specifically named by Engelbrecht in earlier testimony as being one of the individuals involved in harassing her about her various organizations (mainly True the Vote). As such, Cummings may have a very personal interest in disrupting the investigation in whatever manner he can.

For those interested, a detailed look at the question of whether Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights in the first hearing.

Next steps are probably Issa negotiating with Lerner's counsel about immunity.

Confiscation

Magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds will be confiscated by a new San Francisco law:

The measure, enacted in November, requires owners of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition to surrender them to police by April 7 or store them out of state. California law has banned the sale of such weapons since 2000 but does not prohibit possession of magazines acquired legally before then.

The NRA's case challenging the law is still active, but a lower court judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction. That shouldn't come as a surprise; any 2nd Amendment challenges in this area have to contend with existing federal precedents from the assault weapons ban, which set a 10 round magazine limit. Limits of 10 rounds or greater will likely get deference from lower courts until the Supreme Court issues new guidance. Lower limits -- like New York's SAFE act, which sets the limit at 7 -- are more vulnerable.

The reasoning in the ruling is pretty pathetic, though:

"On balance, more innocent lives will be saved by limiting the capacity of magazines than by allowing the previous regime of no limitation to continue," the judge said.

Obama's fingerprints are all over the IRS

Police investigations talk about finding the smoking gun. In this case, we're looking at something more like a smoking document.

"The best way to look at this is as a continuum of a very long and determined political strategy that dates back to 2008 and a man named Barack Obama," Kimberley Strassel, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, declared at The Heritage Foundation on Friday. Strassel argued that "this is a president and his team of political operatives who have always understood the power of speech, but more importantly, the power of denying it to their political opponents."

It's smoking because I'm sure Obama and his minions are burning every bit of evidence they can get their hands on in order to conceal their involvement.