Dec 4, 2013
Now this is really funny. When a gun owner in the Sunshine State started using sunshine laws to get ahold of the communications between a public worker whose main job was actually to work for MAIG, Bloomberg pulled her into the private sector to work for him directly so those pesky taxpayers can’t see how he’s trying to force their government to do his bidding.
It seems that Florida’s public records laws were a little too much for NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun Mayors Against ilLEGAL Guns to bear. At the end of her one year contract, the former Orlando city employee who actually worked for MAIG became a direct employee of MAIG.
Go check out All Nine Yards for more on the latest round of emails they turned up from the tax-funded Bloomberg employee. He seems to enjoy their hypocrisy on the amazing benefit of federal regulation when it comes to gun control, but their horror at the idea of federal interference when it comes to protecting Second Amendment rights.
Dec 3, 2013
The issue of Massachusetts gun licensing delays is getting attention from non-gun sources, and they highlight the reports of nearly 1,000 gun owners who have had their licenses delayed past the point of the state breaking its own laws.
The article highlights a Senate Democrat who notes that this squarely falls on the shoulders of the Deval Patrick administration, and they include the fact that Attorney General Martha Coakley is refusing to investigate why the state government is violating the law, nor will her office even answer public questions on the matter.
Sadly, this isn’t new to Massachusetts gun owners. The government there has had a history of delaying licenses that are needed in order to continue lawfully possessing your guns. It was an issue when I lived there and had to get my gun license.
Dec 3, 2013
National Review posted a column from Stephen Halbrook that comes from his latest book that looks at how German gun registry laws were used to disarm political opponents and Jews around World War II. What I find most interesting is that in less than 36 hours, it’s already generated more than 500 comments. Clearly, it’s a topic that gets people talking and reading.
Dec 3, 2013
There’s a gun-related case in the Arizona Court of Appeals today that deals with overly vague content-based speech restrictions on government property. The Goldwater Institute and ACLU are siding with pro-Second Amendment folks who submitted various advertisements for the Phoenix mass transit system only to see some of them turned down on content restrictions against politically-related advertising and others with similar messages and links accepted.
It’s a case that isn’t just about considering federal First Amendment protections/restrictions on speech, but also may define the state’s constitutional limits on the freedom of speech. The ACLU has apparently argued that state courts have never ruled on the issue of content-based restrictions on government property or provided legal tests to determine when such regulations may be allowed.
The pro-speech/gun side is arguing that the rules are so vague and arbitrary that a reasonable person could not be expected to know when their advertisements may be approved or might be turned down. Attorneys for the city claim that if they can’t have these vague rules that apparently only city bureaucrats understand, then they will be forced into an “all-or-nothing approach — allow no advertising or allow all advertising.”
Nov 27, 2013
Yesterday, it was rumor that only if recall organizers in Colorado managed to force a recall that Sen. Evie Hudak would resign in exchange for special perks in choosing her replacement in the Senate and on her committee in order to keep the Democratic Party in charge in the Senate. That kind of naked power grab doesn’t sit well with many people, as evidenced by even the comments here on our report from yesterday’s rumor.
This morning, the local media picked up on the rumors, and suddenly Hudak announced that she is instead going to resign before the recall petition signatures are even due.
According to the early report, part of Hudak’s initial deal with Democratic Party leaders was that they would go all out for her to keep a recall from even happening. They certainly tried that by getting quite nasty with phone calls and lit drops that implied anyone signing the recall petitions was giving their personal information to sex offenders and criminals.
While Colorado’s Senate remains in the hands of Democrats for now, this is a prime opportunity to start focusing on 2014′s political punishment for backing gun control.
Nov 26, 2013
Reader Adam Z. sent along this report of political gossip in Colorado that Sen. Evie Hudak, the latest Democratic lawmaker up for recall, has agreed to resign if there are enough signatures to have an election.
Having a recall election is risky because it can apparently send the Colorado Senate into GOP hands, something the party wants to stop at all costs. By having Sen. Hudak resign instead of face recall, the Democrats get to appoint a successor and keep the Senate control. In exchange for her not risking the Party’s control, she would, according to the site, get a say in who replaces her.
Nov 26, 2013
I meant to post this yesterday, but forgot. For anyone who hasn’t yet heard about the video of the Monticello, NY Mayors Against Illegal Guns member who was arrested recently, well, you should go check out some of the video at Miguel’s blog.
However, for those of you who don’t have the time to run a video that runs about an hour and a half, I watched it for you. Here are the extra special highlights:
When the first officer comes in, Mayor Gordon Jenkins (who identifies himself several times in the video) reminds the officer that he got the officer his job in the first place and that he knows his family. It’s not really a coherent attempt at intimidation since the Mayor, to me, comes off as quite belligerent at this point.
Then, it gets really weird. He goes on about how he doesn’t care if he dies tomorrow before issuing a warning to the officer: “Be careful how you f***in f*** with people…just be careful how you f***in f*** with people.” That still falls into the belligerent territory in my opinion. However, when it starts getting into what people might interpret as real threats is where it gets interesting: “Down the road, you’re going to say, ‘Why did I do that to that man?’ and you’re going to pay for it.”
After ranting about the time he might serve in jail, he says this about his plans for his release: “Mayor or dog catcher, I’m going to be on your ass.”
The Mayor is held for a long time because they wanted to notify the Police Chief about his arrest so he could handle it. Unfortunate, the Chief was out hunting. When the Mayor is informed that the Chief is unavailable at that very moment, the Mayor’s response is this: “The chief’s got to pay for this.”
After a bit more time talking about how the officers “got to pay for this,” an officer finally asked him if he was issuing a threat. The Mayor claims he was not issuing a threat. However, the next major action in the video is the Mayor getting up out of his chair and using his free arm to rip a clock off the wall and throw it rather violently toward the front desk just outside of the room he’s held in. Seconds later, he kicks the chair he was sitting in across the room. According to an officer who came in to check on him, the clock was broken during the Mayor’s fit.
Keep in mind that this Mayor is actually due in court soon for his 2012 arrest for hitting and injuring a local police officer in an altercation outside of his beauty supply store. And, yet, MAIG still proudly boasts him as an ally as of today on their website.
Then again, this is apparently what Mayor Gordon Jenkins thinks about the importance of his public service as an elected official: “The f***in’ mayorship don’t mean nothing.”
Nov 23, 2013
You’ll need to pardon me for venting, but I’m just getting really sick of petty tyrants and nanny staters in all walks of life. It’s not just in the gun issue. It turns out that my newest hobby – genealogy – has some rather extreme examples, as I have recently discovered.
Getting into genealogy, you quickly learn that you will never stop learning and that you’ll never know everything. You have to understand people, families, history, local issues to where everyone was living, etc. The best example of just how complicated it can get just doing the paperwork genealogy is in this summary of a shifting political boundary situation highlighted in a DAR brochure: “Thus, in 1800, a man who had lived on the same land in Mason County for less than a quarter of a century had resided in two states and five counties, and he had not moved an inch!” This doesn’t include the nightmare of different record keeping requirements for different times and states. In other words, you have to be a naturally curious person who is eager to learn in order to effectively and correctly conduct genealogical research.
Now, mix in genetic genealogy. This means taking DNA tests to discover genetic cousins who you might not have found yet doing traditional genealogy. This also means learning even more about science so you know how to use those results, along with everything you need to know about traditional genealogy. In other words, you have to be a seriously inquisitive person to really take up this hobby. Sebastian and I are pretty inquisitive folks, so we’ve been learning quite a lot as we go along.
To supplement our learning, I joined a Facebook group set up by super users of an atDNA comparison tool to learn from the conversations and questions that come up there. It’s administered by a couple of women who are very experienced with genetics, so I have learned some things. (For example, there’s a ~50% chance that any of your given 4th cousins won’t show up as a DNA match, despite the fact that you both likely carry at least some DNA from the people who were your common ancestors.) However, I recently discovered that these women are kind of psychotic gatekeepers. It’s like the worst stereotypes of the church trying to keep the masses uneducated for their own good in that place.
I merely argued that Maryland’s current system that restricts DNA testing through companies like 23andMe is silly because people shouldn’t be given barriers to their own genetic information. Good lord, it’s like I advocated for complete anarchy. “But people might get confused!” “But people might not interpret something correctly!” “What if someone makes a bad decision?” Suggesting that people make poor decisions every day and that there are already many things that confuse many people, and that maybe confusion is what inspires learning got me banned. Yup, banned. (More about the NY & MD restrictions on DNA testing here if you’re interested.)
We’re not talking guns here, folks. We’re talking education. They were appalled that I would suggest opening up the doors of testing that might lead more people to better understand their own personal DNA. I was actually criticized for being possibly more reasonable than other people and daring to assume that others are even capable of being as logical as I might be.
But it didn’t stop there.
Someone posted a link to a genetic genealogy blogger who recently solved a 30-year genealogy mystery through DNA connections and she used thresholds lower than normal to do it. They are normally thresholds of measuring DNA that aren’t worth investigating because they are too small to easily point you in the right direction. However, because this woman has discovered many genetic cousins and identified their common ancestors, she knows how to effectively use these smaller connections and tells people about her success. In the group run by petty tyrants, she was condemned for daring to share her discovery because somewhere, someone might possibly read it and get their hopes up about making connections on these small shared DNA segments.
So, in other words, they are against giving people access to their DNA results since someone might get confused. They are against bloggers blogging about how they have successfully used DNA results to make genealogical discoveries because someone might get confused. They are against allowing conversation on topics which might confuse people, too. (They recently announced a ban in the group on conversations about smaller segment DNA matches since even the conversation might confuse people.) To me, it was like the BS that Chicago initially tried to pull after McDonald – you need training, but we won’t allow ranges where you can learn. The same thing in Boston (assuming they still do this) where you have to shoot a certain score on a target to get your gun license, but you can’t buy your own handgun to practice with until you get the license.
I don’t know how you solve this problem when their ultimate goal is to keep people stupid. Clearly, this is not a new attitude in human history. We’ve seen it repeated over and over. Regardless, it still drives me nuts since I can’t seem to get away from them, even when I take up a new hobby!
Nov 22, 2013
This is interesting. According to an AP interview with NSSF’s CEO, they considered moving their Newtown headquarters where they have been for 20 years in response to the shooting there.
The article says that even though they didn’t get political until the gun control proposals that would hurt the industry were brought up, their employees who were also impacted by the shooting were still bothered by neighbors who complained about their presence.
Nov 20, 2013
The women behind Moms Demand Action don’t believe that you’re allowed to have a voice at all. See, they are encouraged to lobby and engage in activism. But, if a pro-gun person does it, it’s classified as a case of bullying. There is no disagreement allowed in their world. Everyone must always agree, or they must be treated and punished as bullies for daring to express an alternative view.