Sebastian – Page 1458 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Fort Dix Plot

This is big in the news here, since Fort Dix is close by. It sounds like these guys had a plan, but I wouldn’t say they had a good one. It seems to me that assaulting a large military base with conventional small arms would mean a very quick beginning and end to one’s terrorist career, with not much to show for it.

UPDATE: Formerspook has a different take.Â He’s 100x more of an expert on than I can even pretend to be:

Finally, the aborted plot seems aimed at one of the key security “weaknesses” found on many military installations. While bases are often depicted as armed camps in books or on TV, in reality, many installations maintain only “routine” arrangements inside the perimeter, with most security assets concentrated around “high value” assets, such as the flight line at an Air Force base. The conspirators at Fort Dix apparently planned to blow through the main gate at Fort Dix (against outgunned MPs and civilian security guards), then concentrate their attacks in lightly-defended areas where soldiers gather (dormitories, BX, bowling alley, base club, etc). It’s a simple plan, but the terrorists could have inflicted significant damage before security teams responded. The obvious solution is more security, closer to potential entry points and “soft” targets.

So it would seem commenter GeorgeH brings up a good topic.Â Why are the military afraid to allow soldiers to be armed on base?Â We’re not thinking enough about how to fight assymetric wars, where everyone could have to become a soldier and fight, with little regard to areas that are supposedly “safe”.Â It would seem to me that allowing soldiers to carry weapons on base would be a no brainer.

En Banc Hearing Denied

The DC circuit has refused to rehear Parker vs. DC en banc, with all the circuit judges presiding. On to the Supreme Court! (maybe)

Hat tip: SCOTUSblog

Should it Be a Priviledge to Drive?

I said it is, Uncle disagrees.Â Â I had thought I had posted on this in the past, but I think I meant to and never did.Â I actually think driving ought to be a right, as an element of the right to travel, but it isn’t currently seen that way.Â You have a right to travel, but not operate a motor vehicle.

When arguing against gun controllers, it’s worth pointing out that it is, legally, considered a privilege.Â That’s why it gets different treatment.Â It’s important to make people understand that distinction in the law, even if we might not agree with driving being treated that way.

Do I agree with that classification?Â No.Â I think another neat question to ask is, if the right to travel includes the right to operate machinery on the public roads and skies, what does that right look like?Â How may it be limited?Â Can you still license it?

Publishing License Holders in TN

They did it in Virginia a few months ago, now they are doing it in Tennessee now too.

It’s all the rage in journalism. To publish concealed weapons license holders so that gun thieves know exactly where to go! Oh, same with estranged ex’s and various other people that license holders might not want finding them.

Folks in Pennsylvania can rest assured I’ve not yet found any county sheriff who would turn this kind of data over to reporters.

UPDATE: More from Michael Bane

No Water Cooler for You!

This is crazy:

A coalition of students, environmentalists, Christians and thirsty people have written a letter to Mayor Street asking him to get rid of all the bottled water the city buys.

Philadelphia, as you may know, has a pretty decent water supply, not full of arsenic or lead or blood or floating heads or whatever. The push is organized by Corporate Accountability International, who is leading the push against “the marketing muscle of bottled water corporations.” Indeed!

Emphasis mine.Â Philadelphia water tastes like total crud, generally.Â I’ve never been able to stand it.Â It seems to be rather than worrying that the city is buying bottled water for its employees, they should worry more about the city wasting money on unmerited lawsuits against the state in regards to the well established fact that they may not make their own gun laws.

Qualified for Gun Club

This weekend Bitter and I had to switch me going down to her coming up, because I was told I had to show up to qualify on pistol for the gun club that weekend.Â If I couldn’t make it, I’d have to wait until fall to get in.

It was pretty easy. Â You had to hit a fairly giant 100 yard target at 15 yards.Â They were mostly looking for safety. Â If you could land 9 out of 10 shots on the paper, you qualified.Â There were a few people that had problems qualifying.Â I was told that they get people who pretty much exclusively shoot clays that have to qualify, and can’t shoot pistol to save their lives.Â Everyone has to qualify on pistol though, and show they can competently handle one.

I’m mostly satisfied with their rules.Â Most of them are common sense.Â They do allow concealed carry, you just can’t shoot from a holster.Â You’re not allowed to shoot the weapon you’re carrying, except in an emergency. Â You’re limited to 5 rounds in a firearm.Â One or two rounds on the clay range.

The reason given for round limitations was in case the gun had a malfunction that made it go full auto; to avoid sending a bullet in an unsafe direction. Â This can happen, but I think it’s rare.Â Personally, I would like to see the club open up the plinking range to full magazines, and allow people to fill revolvers, which can’t have that problem.Â On outdoor ranges I’m generally more accepting of magazine limits just to someone can’t fire off a really long string when other people are ready to check targets.Â The indoor range I’m currently a member of has no magazine limits and there’s never been a problem.

I get voted in Wednesday, pay the fee, and get my access card.Â After that, I can shoot 24/7, and have use of some pretty nice facilities.

Rendell Honest on Gun Control

I was surprised to come across this article highlighting our Governor’s views on gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, and I found it refreshing that Rendell doesn’t seem to be taking a hard line approach, even making some honest admissions for someone who has strongly supported gun control efforts:

The Rendell administration is examining laws that control who may buy guns in Pennsylvania in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, but the governor is unlikely to follow his Virginia counterpart’s lead and call for barring firearms sales to anyone ordered to get mental-health treatment, a top administration aide said.

“Should everybody who’s depressed not be able to buy a gun?” asked Donna Cooper, Gov. Ed Rendell’s policy secretary, whose staff is pulling together information about how other states balance patient privacy rights and public safety.

Wow! To be fair to Tom Kaine, his executive order limited itself to outpatient treatment combined with a danger finding. It doesn’t just apply to anyone ordered to outpatient treatment.

“Laws alone cannot protect society from crazed killers”, Cooper said, recalling the October 2006 shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster County.

Double wow! Read the whole thing. Apparently Pennsylvania is one of the states that deosn’t report mental health records to NICS, though they are contained in the PICS system. Mentally incompetent people wouldn’t be able to buy a gun in Pennsylvania, but would be able to buy a long gun in another state.

Of course, I doubt this changes his support for gun rationing, which I will continue to oppose.

UPDATE: The article now actually includes a link to the story.

A Friendly Editorial

Writing in the Elmira Star Gazette, it seems high school student Danielle Schenone has more sense than the entire editorial board of the New York Times, but still misunderstands something:

The key to lowering the numbers of those who fall victim to inappropriate gun use is education and registration. All states should continue background checks and policies of fingerprinting those who buy firearms, and they also should require safety and ownership courses, much like those required to obtain a driver’s license.

Danielle is quite correct to recognize a firearm’s utility and use in self-defense, but misunderstands the difference between owning a firearm and driving a car.Â One is a right, and one is a privilege.Â You can put prior restraints on a privilege.Â You can’t on rights.Â Putting restrains on the point of sale will only affect those who are not inclined to commit crimes.Â Criminals don’t obtain their firearms through legal channels.

Dog Control

Eric at Classical Values is on his 9th post about California’s AB1634, requiring cats and dogs to be spayed or neutered.Â I’m neither a cat or dog owner, but this law strikes me as going way way too far, and probably won’t even solve the problems its attempting to address.

People in California, in all honestly, need to get their state government under control, and remind them who they work for, and what appropriate limits on their power is.Â Â That might mean that folks in California may need to hold their noses, and vote for another party, just to get some of these people out of office.

Terrorist Watch List Bill Out

The “Dangerous Terrorists Act” is out in PDF over at Of Arms and the Law.Â I’m really curious why the DOJ wants this so badly, and I’m also really curious why Bush has yet to fire Alberto Gonzalez.Â This is not the kind of crap I expect to be coming out of a “pro-gun” administration.

Of course, I could just chalk this up to the Aministration’s penchant for ignoring due process concerns when it comes to people they have declared “terrorists”. Â I’ve been willing to grant them a lot of leeway in dealing with foreigners captured in a theater of war, but not with the rights of US citizens. Â This is an outrage.