Beer Police

Apparently we’ve solved so many crimes in this state that the State Police have nothing better to do than go around looking for unregistered beer. I am particularly disturbed that they seized one of my very favorite area beers, the Monk’s Flemish Sour Ale. I was completely unaware that there was any such thing as a beer registry in Pennsylvania, but I can’t say I’m surprised. The beer business in this state is basically run by the big distributors. It’s regulatory capture at its worst.

It’s high time our state legislators stood up to the Malt Beverage Distributors Association of Pennsylvania, and enacted comprehensive reform and modernization of our laws governing alcoholic beverages. It’s time for Pennsylvania to move beyond the prohibition era. Everyone hates this system. What’s to lose by changing it?

Daley Counterattacks

Looks like Daley is firing a return volley at the Second Amendment just as his city’s handgun ban looks to have a very limited future. What’s surprising is he openly admits this is a counterattack:

“The aggressiveness of the gun advocates is just one reason it’s more important than ever that we work for common-sense gun laws focused on stopping the flow of illegal guns into our communities and keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals,” Daley said, standing next to tables loaded with weapons confiscated by Chicago police.

Dave Hardy notes that there would be vagueness issues with at least one of the laws. I’m not sure what the point is of closing any gun show loophole in Illinois either, since you are required to have an FOID card to possess firearms in that state. What the point of the licensing if they are still going to claim there’s some kind of “loophole”?

The whole point of these, however, is just to get back at gun owners. Daley won’t be happy unless he’s pissing on the Second Amendment, and he doesn’t appreciate the residents of his city demanding their rights. He’ll teach you!

IGOLD 2010 is tomorrow. Let’s hope for a strong turnout so maybe gun owners in Illinois can teach Mayor Daley a lesson for a change.

Jacob Sullum on Open Carry

I was eager to read his opinion on this topic, because despite being friendly on the gun issue, he’s a bit of an outsider to it. He didn’t really commit one way or another, but he brought up an interesting point:

Beyond the legal and practical issues, of course, there is the question of whether open carry activists are helping or hurting the cause of gun rights by popping up in coffee shops and restaurants with weapons on their waists. Respectable, law-abiding people carrying guns openly in public places could help normalize gun ownership and armed self-defense among people who are unfamiliar with both. The experience of a Walnut Hill, California, pizzeria owner who decided to welcome gun carriers is consistent with that hope:

“Frankly, I wasn’t sure how I would feel in that type of situation, and it really turned out to be a total nonissue,” Ms. Grunner said.

“The families were great,” she said. “These were very gracious people.” The fact that customers wore sidearms, she said, “just faded into the background.”

Then again, the sight of people with pistols on their hips could serve to confirm prejudices about gun owners among people who believe they fetishize their weapons and seek to project a macho image. The goal of encouraging support for liberalized concealed carry policies depends to some extent on normalization yet at the same time assumes open gun toting will make people uneasy. I’m not sure people can be simultaneously reassured and alarmed.

This statement, in combination with some other statements folks have made in the comments, makes me wonder whether your opinion on open carry is largely driven by your perception of what the dominant thinking is around you, and that perhaps the open carry folks have a more optimistic outlook on the attitudes of their fellow Americans than non-open-carry supporters.

From my point of view, I think most people, if forced to take a side, probably wouldn’t support carrying a gun in public if it meant they were going to see guns everywhere they went. I don’t want the public thinking about how they feel about it, because I worry we’ll lose support. But I suspect open carry folks believe that if the public is forced to think about it, the public will eventually take their side, and we’ll gain support. Which side is right? Probably depends greatly on the surrounding culture. I suspect neither side is right in every circumstance, but it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. The Starbucks incident may end up being a watershed moment in the debate.

Intellectuals Stepping Off the Cliff

Thomas Sowell has an excellent interview here discussing why it’s dangerous to put intellectuals in charge of everything. This is truth. I’ve often heard people decry the influence of lobbyists in Washington. I don’t. The lobbyists are the only ones who know how anything works. If you took the lobbyists out of the equation this country would be run by dimwitted politicians with delusions of grandeur, and overeducated twenty something staffers who think they know a lot more than they really do.

Defense Carbines

Tam has a pretty good post on the subject. I have both a 20″ and carbine length AR. I shoot the 20″ more often because that’s what I compete with when I shoot CMP/high-power. I’ve shot a few practical matches with my carbine, but I would consider it my go-to gun in a home defense situation if I kept it at the ready. It’s the keeping it at the ready part I’ve never been able to bother with.

Maybe I’m just not all that committed to home defense, but it’s always been easier or me to rely on a pistol for those purposes. I have to remember to lug a carbine back down to the safe if I’m leaving home for any period of time, then to get it back out again when I return. While, I have home-defense-appropriate fragmenting ammunition for the rifle, unless it’s a seriously messed up situation where I have time to go downstairs and unlock the safe, I’m probably going to be using my Glock.

I’ve always considered a rifle or shotgun to be a pain in the butt to deal with for home defense. What solutions do you guys use that would that would allow it to be used for home-defense, but avoid the scenario where someone breaks into the house and steals it, or worse, uses it against the returning homeowners?

Smells Like Bullshit to Me

This story of a Russian kid designing a new electronic sniper rifle looks like bullshit to me, and considering it’s coming from Pravda, it probably is. The reason I think it’s a hoax is that we’ve never been able to make portable electromagnetic weapons that can shoot a projectile fast enough to rival chemically driven projectiles in energy, speed and ballistic performance. It’s quite possible the kid has successfully built a coil gun, but it’s not going to be killing anybody anytime soon. At least not hooked up to a portable power source weighing less than six kilos.

Secondly, even if the kid is a super genius, and developed something that can be accurately classified as a weapon, any device that propels a projectile beyond supersonic speeds will not be silent. At the least, the projectile will make a cracking noise as it travels faster than the speed of sound. Also, Newton’s Third Law will demand the rifle has recoil, and they claim it does not.

You can see a fairly sophisticated coil gun here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjMTffRav-I[/youtube]

That’s getting a projectile moving pretty good, but not at speeds high enough to be an effective weapon, and it’s still going to be a smooth bore barrel. Someday maybe, but not now.

h/t to SayUncle

Mildly Amusing Observation

I’ll admit that I have an offbeat sense of humor. So I’ll admit that I was way too amused by this description of a new release posted to Hacking Netflix today:

Nine strangers face the mind-bender of a lifetime when a hooded madman locks them in a basement and announces that he will slay one of them every 10 minutes until they uncover the mysterious connection they all share. But starting without a single clue, can any of them solve the puzzle in less than 90 minutes?

Movie time: 86 minutes.

So I guess at least one survives. Damn.