May 2010 – Page 11 – Shall Not Be Questioned

New Prime Minister

Gorden Brown resigned, and Queen Elizabeth has asked Tory leader David Cameron to form a new government. It will be a coalition government between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, who are not all that unlike our liberal Democrats, only with more a libertarian streak to them:

Sky News’ royal commentator Alastair Bruce said the Queen would have asked the Tory leader the constitutional question “Will you form the new administration?” and the moment he said “yes” he became prime minister of Great Britain.

Mr Bruce added: “And then his wife would have been invited into the room and they would all have had a jolly good chat.”

Mr Cameron is the 14th prime minister the Queen has dealt with.

Sky News’ royal correspondent Sarah Hughes said Mr Cameron’s audience with the Her Majesty lasted some 25 minutes.

The Queen wanted to prepare Mr. Cameron for his first gift from the Obama Administration, which no doubt took some time. Â The operation isÂ parliamentaryÂ systems is quite different from our own.Â Unlike our system, where coalitions are formed in the major political parties, with the hopes and dreams of the coalition members carried by one individual candidate, in a parliamentary system that happens in the government. The previous election in April was inconclusive, and resulted in a “hung parliament” since the Tories, while having gained many seats, did not quite achieve a majority of the seats. This left Gordon Brown the task of attempting to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. He failed, and tendered hisÂ resignationÂ to the Queen, who asked David Cameron to form a new Administration. I would not expect that the Government David Cameron leads is going to be that effective. They will have to address many of the Liberal Democrat issues, and unless they gain a majority, will be subject to having the Liberal Dems bolt the coalition and take down the government. I would think that’s going to make it hard to get anything done, but perhaps they will be able to work together in areas where they do agree. It’ll be interested, at the least, to see what comes out of this.

Brady Folks Blowing Smoke

Wow, this is pretty amazing. They take a complete non-answer from Senator David Vitter as an indication he’sÂ climbingÂ on board with their “terror gap” legislation, and follow up with claiming that C-rated Mary Landrieu, who’s A -rated opponent NRA endorsed in the last election, is somehow “pro-gun” Â I guess an NRA C-rating is pro-gun from the Brady point of view. If the Bradys really had something to brag about it would be that Vitter’s opponent in the race is on board with the legislation, but his comment was that he would “talk about this later.” You can see it all in this article here. I think characterizing this as building momentum is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the Brady Campaign.

Guns and Bears

SayUncle noted that someone dispatched a bear in self-defense with a .41 Magnum. I think Chris, who is located in Alaska, and I’m guessing has a bit more local knowledge about grizzly encounters than most, has some sage advice:

This is why we always carry bear spray and usually carry a gun too. The spray is Plan A, but if something decides to gnaw on me I want a plan B.

He notes that you’re much more likely to have a dangerous bear encounter in a National Park than anywhere else, and notes, “In any event, if you’re in AK doing lots of stuff outdoors, and you don’t carry at least bear spray, you’re stupid. Heck, we keep a can in each car because bears hang out around town too.”

I tend to agree with his approach, much the same way I advocate for people who carry guns to also carry a defensive spray. In a lot of cases, the spray is going to be the easiest and least problematic way out of a situation. The problem with gun control folks is that they want to sell you on the notion that one tool is really best for all situations. This is nonsense. Having both expands your capabilities and options, and there’s nothing wrong with either.

Conflicted

This article talks about how Apple is losing some of it’s lustre among tech people:

But, thereâ€™s evidence that Apple is losing some of its luster with techies. The companyâ€™s stubborn refusal to support Adobe Flash (which wins props with some IT pros but breaks a lot of Web sites), its draconian and ambiguous review policy for the App Store, and itâ€™s strong-arm legal tactics with HTC and Gizmodo are having a negative impact on how young, tech-savvy professionals view Apple, according toÂ YouGovâ€™s BrandIndex.

I’m definitely not with Apple when it comes to strong arming HTC and Gizmodo, but when it comes to Adobe Flash, I am conflicted. I count myself among those who would like to use Flash on the iPhone, but I also am fully behind Apple’s efforts to try to destroy this monstrosity that’s been poisoning the Internet for years. You can see why it is to be loathed here and here. All valid reasons for hating Flash.

The only aspect of not having Flash on the iPhone that really drives me nuts are for video playback sites. This is something that probably will be mitigated by HTML5, when, sometime next Century, W3C finally gets around toÂ cementingÂ the standard. But will anyone use HTML5? There are issues with that as well, namely that it pushes video support on to the browser. I would like to see Flash die and be replaced by a W3C standard, but in the mean time it’s highly prevalent on the Internet, and becomes more widespread while the W3C dithers on a solid HTML5 standard.

New Jersey Traffic Stop

Cemetery got pulled over on the way back from a match. In a normal state, this would go something like “Why yes, Officer, I do have firearms in the vehicle. They are locked security in the back, except for the loaded Glock in the glove box.” A few minutes later, you’d probably be on your way. But Cemetery did the right thing for Jersey, which is to shut up. I find his telling of the story hilarious, however:

But when I met up with my friend, I was still Cowboyâ€™d Up cause she likes the clothes, I realized I stunk of sulfur, from shooting black magic.Â Makes me wonder if thatâ€™s what the Officer was smelling.

Iâ€™ll have to remember next I get pulled over after shooting black magic, that if Iâ€™m asked what that funky smell is, Iâ€™ll just say that Iâ€™ve been eating a bunch of chili.Â I think that will end the nosey business might quick.

Sounds like the right tactic to me.

Gun Rights: It’s Like Burning Witches

At least according to Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution:

A hundred years from now, historians and sociologists will look back on these times and puzzle over the rightâ€™s utter fanaticism over firearms. Much like we look back today and wonder how New Englanders could really have believed that a few odd women might have been witches and burned them at the stake…

The rest is calling for removing the rights of Americans without due process of law, which I say historians will one day look back on, and say was kind of like when we denied many Americans their basic rights without due process in the South prior to the civil rights movement. Ridiculous assertion? No more than hers.

Bloomberg “needs his head examined”

The chairman of the Conservative Party of Madison County, New York seems to know stupid when he sees it:

Let me get this straight. A terrorist bought a car off of Craigslist, fireworks in Pennsylvania, and inflammable fertilizer, parked his dud-car-bomb in Times Square, got onto an international flight, and was only caught at the last minute as the plane was taxing to the runway. Mayor Bloombergâ€™s solution to this is to call for stricter gun-control laws?

Mayor Bloomberg needs his head examined. If he somehow thinks gun-control laws will prevent criminals, much less terrorists, he is sorely mistaken.

You got that straight, but he doesn’t need to have his head examined. Bloomberg knows exactly what he is doing. Crazy maybe, but like a fox. What should amaze folks is that hundreds of mayors across Pennsylvania have signed on to this agenda. I wish I could get dozens of letters like this submitted to papers all across this Commonwealth.

Protesters?

One disappointment about the NRA Annual Meeting for the past few years has been the lack of protesters. Nothing draws a community together like beingÂ vilifiedÂ and protested.Â The Brady folk have been touting a few events that make me think we might just have some this year. Neither looks protest oriented. The Federalist Society Debate will be with Alan Gura, and the second event doesn’t look much like a protest, but I’m sure if the turnout is big enough it could turn into one.

But even if the other side is more content talking among themselves, there’s also the possibility we’ll be having a protest form our own side, over the carry nonsense. Just imagine if those people would show up in Raleigh where their protest might actually make a difference in changing the law. But why direct yourÂ righteousÂ indignation at the proper targets when you can get a little NRA hating going?

It’s going to be fun, that’s for sure!

Wilson Becomes Number 33

Max Nacheman, paid representative of MAIG sent by New York City Mayor Bloomberg to screw with your gun rights in Pennsylvania, is at it again, but at least we got one guy up there to complain about it. That’s thirty three towns they’ve passed this crap in now. How long before they start bringing this crap to Harrisburg? Gun owners in Pennsylvania need to wake up. We need more than just one guy showing up when Bloomberg’s paid stooge comes to town.

New Case Involving Carry

NRA and CRPA are suing the San Diego Sheriff over their arbitrary carry license issuance policy.

The case challenges the application of California Penal Code section 12050, which allows a sheriff or police chief to issue a permit where â€œthe person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance,â€ and that the person is a resident of that county.Â Under this law, sheriffs and chiefs of police often implement subjective standards for â€œgood cause,â€ as well as residency requirements that are not constitutionally permissible.Â Â The Complaint was originally filed in October 2009 by a local activist. It survived a motion brought by the County to dismiss the case.Â In the Order denying that motion, the Judge confirmed that the constitutional claims were valid, and that the Countyâ€™s arbitrary permit issuance policy may very well be unconstitutional.Â The amended Complaint adds both more plaintiffs and more legal claims for relief. Documents relating to the case are posted at www.calgunlaws.com.

This would be another case, in addition to Palmer in the DC Circuit, being argued by Alan Gura, that involves the right to “bear” arms, rather than just to keep arms. The cases are a bit different due to the different type of law that they are challenging. The CRPA/NRA case would seem to hinge on the arbitrary and capricious nature of issuance, while the Palmer case in DC hinges on their now allowing a non-resident of DC any means at all for carrying a firearm.