Month: August 2007

KevinLeave a comment

What Does it Say About the Media…

…when this gets reported by Popular Mechanics?

Half a World Away: Soldiers in Iraq Don’t Hear Deliberations Back Home (and Often Don’t Care)

TIKRIT, Iraq — It never even hits the radar screen. For the troops on the front lines and the colonels in the rear—and just about everyone in between – the big news in Iraq every day is that they’re still alive and healthy. When it comes to Senate votes on the U.S. presence in Iraq, Sunday talk shows thrashing out length of deployment and stateside pundits talking to themselves, nearly every grunt, airman, sailor, soldier and Marine I speak with just doesn’t care.

It’s not negligence or a lack of opinion about how long they think they should stay here; they’re tuned out because the news doesn’t impact their day-to-day operations – and because comms often leave them uninformed from half a world away.

War deliberations and post-firefight reactions back home can vanish during the 12-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week base-line duty of the average soldier in Iraq. So when line troops are swamped carrying gear from street patrol to street patrol, village raid to village raid, for up to 20 hours a day, they often don’t have the time for, or the luxury of, Internet access. And when they do get it, they’re not punching up CNN – it’s e-mails from home they’re reading.

During last month’s heated, all-night debate on Capitol Hill about when and if the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, I asked several military officers of different ages and ranks about their thoughts on a potential pullout. Nearly every one stressed how important his or her work here has been—and will be. “If we leave within months, Iraq will be a province of Iran,” one colonel said. “Everyone with any education or skills who hasn’t already left will end up leaving.”

A mortarman with the 25th Infantry stationed in Tal Afar stressed that he thought the American media has not been reporting what really goes on during daily ops across the war zone. “It’s all about body counts,” he said. Marines out in the former Wild West of Anbar province said the same. They are proud of the job they’ve done in cleaning up what was once considered a lost, Al Qaeda-infested area. They wondered why America hasn’t heard MORE of that news.

A sergeant 1st class with the 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, whose unit is attached to the Marines near Habbaniyah, patrols daily around Al Anbar province. This is his third tour, and he’s confident that progress is being made, despite what he calls early missteps in policy. “I think [Americans] understand our sacrifice, but they don’t understand that we’re just not ready to leave.”

The sergeant expressed an opinion I’ve heard from dozens of line and support troops and commanding officers about the continuing effort to rebuild, piece by piece: “We need a little more time – some places are more violent than others. But that’s how things happen. This country can’t be built in five years. And don’t we have a responsibility to help them build it?”

What is so difficult for so many of them, though, are the seemingly endless deployments, and for the Army, at least, disheartening extensions. Many soldiers will spend two Christmases away from home. —Leslie Sabbagh

I guess you don’t have any “moral authority” unless you’re the anti-war parent of a killed or maimed soldier, sailor, airman or Marine, or an anti-war active duty member of the military. Those who “believe we have a responsibility” to the population of Iraq are obviously just duped ignoramuses who joined the military because they couldn’t get a real job, and only wanted the job training and college benefits. Who needs to listen to them?

KevinLeave a comment

I Would Patent This Idea…

…but I want it spread far and wide.

First, this (via South Park Pundit):

DIY Phone-Activated Camera-Blinding Laser

Now that China’s taken point on sticking surveillance cameras pretty much everywhere, we’re going to start seeing all sorts of fun projects to disable them, all of questionable legality. This impressive setup is a cellphone-controlled laser, which can render a security camera useless from afar. Simply set the laser up pointing at the camera(s) of your choice, then give the connected phone a call when you need to not be seen.

Now, instead of using a low-powered laser sight, use THIS:

Turn a flashlight into a handheld burning laser

DIYer Kipkay extracts the laser from a DVD burner and mounts it in a small flashlight to create a handheld laser burner that can light matches and burst balloons. Hit the play button to see how he did it. This project isn’t for the faint of heart: it involves pretty specialized components and soldering, but that’ll all be worth it when you’re camping with your pals and you start the fire by pointing your homemade handheld laser at the tinder.

That would absolutely be powerful enough to fry the CCD chip in a digital video camera. (Also your retinas and probably your corneas, so don’t torment your cat with one of these.)

Used with a mirror, I bet you could fry security and speed cameras with little to no chance of being identified. This beats the hell out of “necklacing” them.

I wonder how long it will be before they start registering DVD burners in England?

UPDATE: I just checked on the laser module shown in the instructions. This is what I found at the site:

It looks like a lot of people are building the laser part, anyway.

This is What Licensing and Registration are For

KevinLeave a comment

And it’s why I will never register my firearms (and why I’m still not too happy about having to get government permission to carry concealed.)

A lot of blogs were talking about the news from Taxachusetts last week when they reported that gun permit renewals were down 25% over the last six years, and 30% in Boston.

Gun permits drop 25% in Bay State

Culture shift, fees are cited

Normally I don’t include the photos from these stories, but in this case, I will:

Obviously Massachusetts has taken a page from Maryland’s playbook. Continuing:

The number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts has declined by more than a quarter in the past six years, a falloff driven by restrictive laws, higher licensing fees, and cultural change, according to police officers and gun owners.

The drop is especially dramatic in the eastern part of the state and in urban areas. The number of licensed gun owners fell at least 30 percent in Boston, Springfield, Quincy, Fall River, and Waltham. It dropped at least 20 percent in more than 220 of the state’s 351 communities.

The number of licensed owners climbed in about 40 mostly smaller communities in the central and western parts of the state. It also rose in a handful of eastern suburbs and cities, such as Weston and Brockton, according to data from the state’s Criminal History Systems Board, which tracks licensed gun owners.

Overall, the number of people in Massachusetts with a license to carry a weapon has declined from about 330,000 to about 240,000 from 2001 to 2007. Over the past three years, the number of licensed owners has declined by 15,000.

While some law enforcement officials praise the decline, police, politicians and antigun advocates caution that there are still plenty of illegal guns on the streets, contributing to a steady pace of violence.

Well THERE’S a shocker.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: These laws can disarm only one group – the law-abiding. Note that the piece blames part of the decline on “cultural change.” They’re correct. I’m willing to bet that many gun owners are leaving. Let me quote The Geek with a .45 on his 2003 decision to depart from New Jersey for the (relative) freedom of Pennsylvania:

We’ll be starting the house hunt after the first of the year. With the miniGeeks, we need a bigger place anyway, and shortly, this will all be a bad dream.

The thing is, I don’t think that’ll be the happy end of the story. I think the story is just beginning to be told.

As I mentioned to Kim, there is a hidden exodus that you won’t read about in the papers:

“People are moving away from certain states: not because they’ve got a job offer, not because they want to be closer to family, but because the state they are living in doesn’t measure up to the level of freedom they believe is appropriate for Americans. We are internal refugees.”

The fact that things have gone so far south in some places that people actually feel compelled to move the fuck out should frighten the almighty piss out of you.

Ten or fifteen years ago, I would’ve dismissed that notion, that people were relocating themselves for freedom within America as the wild rantings of a fringe lunatic, but today, I’m looking for a real estate agent.

It is a symptom of a deep schism in the American scene, one that has been building bit by bit for at least fifty, and probably more like seventy years, and whose effects are now visibly bubbling to the surface.

Just open your eyes and take a long look around you.

If you’re an informed firearms enthusiast, you know how much has been lost since 1934.

Even if you lay aside gun rights issues, let me ask you some questions.

No, on second thought, let’s save the 50 questions for another posting, for now, lets just ask one:

When was the last time you built a bonfire on a beach, openly drank a beer and the presence of a policeman was absolutely no cause for concern? Hmmm?

I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Edward Arsenault wishes he’d joined that “hidden exodus” some time ago. His right to own a firearm rests only on the whim of a licensing board.

Still, regardless of the fact that these laws disarm only the law-abiding, the opposition sticks to its endless mantra that it’s the number of guns that’s responsible for the carnage:

“Fewer firearms on the street makes life safer for everyone,” said Robert F. Crowley, Quincy’s police chief. “The average citizen who has a gun 24-7 I don’t believe has the experience, knowledge, and training to know when and if they should use a firearm.”

To paraphrase somebody, your belief does not negate my rights.

Many attribute the drop to a 1998 state law, the Massachusetts Gun Control Act, and subsequent changes, which dramatically changed the gun licensing landscape by increasing fees and making it more difficult for people with old legal problems to renew their license.

It now costs $100 for a six-year license for a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. It costs $25 for a six-year permit for a chemical repellent, with no renewal fee. A lifetime permit for a rifle used to cost $2. It can take about two months to get a license.

“People come in to renew and are shocked it’s $100,” said Keith MacPherson, deputy police chief in Waltham.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. As I have also noted, this is how it worked in England, as well. Make legal gun ownership expensive and onerous and the number of legal owners will decline. Increase the onerousness, and the decline will increase. It’s not worth the hassle to most people for whom guns are just (at best) recreational devices used about as often as a tennis racket. (Got one of those in your closet?) Once the number of legal owners declines far enough, the rest of the population becomes apathetic towards protecting the right to arms – and that right, for all practical purposes, ceases to exist. It’s $100 every six years now? Why not make it $100 annually? And you can only apply to renew on each third Wednesday of the month between 8:00 AM and 4:00PM (but not between 12:00 and 1:00). You must appear in person with a notarized copy of your birth certificate (a new copy for the file each year.) Certified check or money order only, and it must be for the exact amount – which will change by a few cents each year. Processing fees, you understand.

What, that’s not a “reasonable restriction”? Says who?

Other New England states do not appear to have experienced a similar drop, although comparisons are hampered because permitting and records differ widely.

Limited data show that the number of nonresident permits have increased by more than half in Maine and have more than doubled in New Hampshire since 2000 and 2001, respectively. Pistol permits are down slightly in Rhode Island and are up slightly in Connecticut.

“We saw a big increase after 9/11,” said Sergeant William Gomane of Maine’s State Police.

Right, when some people figured out that they were responsible for their own protection. But it didn’t really sink in with the majority of the population.

The law in Massachusetts was changed in 1998, and in later years, so that anyone convicted of a violent felony is disqualified from ever obtaining a state license. Those convicted of a misdemeanor or a nonviolent felony are also disqualified for five years following conviction or release. People convicted of assault and battery on family members, or crimes involving drugs or guns, are also disqualified.

This is an expansion of U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922 (g) (1) in which anyone “who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” no longer has a right to arms. Note that you don’t have to actually receive a sentence of more than one year, the charge just has to be one that can result in a sentence of more than one year.

Apparently stealing a chicken at age 9 qualifies.

It makes you wonder what else does, too, doesn’t it?

“A slew of people are now prohibited,” said Dennis Collier, a police captain in Revere.

You betcha!

Even before the new law, license applications were filed with local police chiefs, who have some discretion for granting or denying licenses. For instance, a person whose state and local background check shows he or she has been on trial for violent crimes, but not convicted, can be denied a license by the chief.

With even tighter restrictions, some gun owners have been infuriated, considering it an unjust and a transparent attempt to deny honest hard-working residents their right to own a gun.

But not infuriated enough to cause them to do a Marvin Heemeyer. Not yet, anyway.

Edward Arsenault, 70, of Fairhaven, was turned down for his license renewal earlier this year because he had been convicted in juvenile court of stealing a chicken from a chicken coop when he was 9 years old, in 1946.

Arsenault said he barely remembers the incident.

Seeing as it happened only sixty years ago, I can’t imagine why he would have problems remembering it. It should have been seared, seared into his memory! Obviously someone with that kind of mental defect should be denied access to something as dangerous as a firearm!

“I have no problem with gun control or background checks, but let’s not get ridiculous,” said Arsenault, a gun license owner since the 1980s. “Something done when someone is 9 years old carries over until they are 70? We’re not talking about robbing a bank; we’re talking about stealing a chicken.”

No, we’re talking about guns – a talisman of evil to some people, and a reminder to others that some of us still believe in the concept of personal sovereignty. Remember, “when dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.” Here’s a hint, sir: It’s already gone way past ridiculous, because people like you “have no problem with gun control.”

But you do now, don’tcha?

He appealed the ruling to New Bedford District Court in April and won, at least partly thanks to Fairhaven Police Chief Gary Souza, who testified on his behalf. It was the first time in more than four years on the job that Souza stood up for someone who had been denied a license, he said.

In Boston, the number of licensed owners fell from 7,577 in 2001 to 4,374 this year, a drop of 42 percent. In the same period, gun licenses in Cambridge dropped 25 percent to 782; 71 percent to 484 in Brookline, and 33 percent to 1,150 in Newton, state records show.

“We’re pleased that the number of gun owners has decreased in our city, but the real issue is illegal guns, and we need more laws to deal with illegal guns in our cities,” Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston said in a statement.

No, Mayor Menino, the real issue is violent criminals, not the tools they use.

But it’s so much easier to blame an inanimate object, isn’t it?

Mayor James E. Harrington of Brockton, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a national organization, said that while it is good fewer firearms are around, the bigger problem is guns that make their way to the street illegally. He would like more restrictions on bulk out-of-state sales of guns by dealers.

What, he wants to make it super-duper illegal? I assume he’s talking about multiple handgun sales. Handguns that can’t be sold to someone from out of state? And that multiple purchases of which are reported – by law – to the BATF? (Which seems to do fuck-all with the information.)

What “more restrictions” would he like? I love these vague ideas that the gun-control people keep touting.

John E. Rosenthal, founder of nonprofit Stop Handgun Violence, said the drop in ownership is primarily because of the law, but might also be because of increased awareness of gun safety and violence. Maybe “moms who are the primary caregivers are concerned about guns in the home and maybe they are influencing the men in the home,” Rosenthal said.

Right. Sure. It’s the “civilizing influence” of nurturing mothers.

The drop did not surprise Andrew Arulanandan, a spokesman for the 4-million-member National Rifle Association.

He attributed the reduction to higher fees. “When you add additional taxes on any universe of people, there are going to be people who are forced to give up whatever pursuit that is being taxed. The victims here are the people with limited means and not the criminals. The criminals won’t stand in line to . . . pay the tax.”

They don’t stand in line at “gun buybacks” either.

Don Hunt, owner of Hunter’s Trading Post, a gun shop in Weymouth, thinks the dropoff is partly because of negative media stories, which he said poison young people’s minds toward firearms.

“This is not a gun sport friendly state,” he said.

And it’s getting less friendly by the month, too.

It’s all part of the plan.

Attitudes toward firearms vary widely. Many people in rural areas and in the western part of the state enjoy hunting and guns.

In Chester, nestled in the foothills of the Berkshires, “the joke is, you don’t live in Chester unless you own a gun,” said Police Chief Ronald Minor. The town of 1,300 has about 185 licensed gun owners. Owning a gun “is like second nature, like having a car,” Minor said. “It’s just a different way of life.”

Well, they’d better get used to the idea of not owning a gun when the overwhelming majority of their mostly-urban neighbors decide that there is no right to arms worth protecting, and their civil masters in the legislature – who know pretty much where every legally-owned firearm in the state is – demands they give them up.

And are then surprised by the fact that the “illegal guns” are still out there, and in ever-increasing numbers.

KevinLeave a comment

On the Road Again.

Out of town for a couple of days. Blogging will be light to non-existant.

(P.S.: Blogspot has started “word verification” security, apparently to prevent automated spam-bot blogging. The word for this post was “whmdj” – is that shorthand for “whamdijous”?)

KevinLeave a comment

Now THIS is Freaking Fascinating.

(Copied verbatim from here, from a WSJ subscriber-only piece. Her copy-fu seems weak, so sorry for the missing bit of text.)

Propaganda Redux

By ION MIHAI PACEPA
August 7, 2007; Page A11

During last week’s two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged “the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism” and vowed to follow Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown’s statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush’s domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania — with two death sentences on his head — in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a “liar,” a “deceiver” and a “fraud.”

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America’s own respect for its president.

My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While “America” was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war — if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

Later, when I headed Romania’s intelligence station in West Germany, everyone there admired America too. People would often tell me that the “Amis” meant the difference between night and day in their lives. By “night” they meant East Germany, where their former compatriots were scraping along under economic privation and Stasi brutality. That was then.

But in September 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin, had the nerve to compare Mr. Bush to Hitler. In one post-Iraq-war poll 40% of Canada’s teenagers called the U.S. “evil,” and even before the fall of Saddam 57% of Greeks answered “neither” when asked which country was more democratic, the U.S. or Iraq.

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler — as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman — the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America’s international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt’s war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.

Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”

On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents — some better than others — but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not be able to change the habits of our current political representatives, but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.

For once, the communists got it right. It is America’s leader that counts. Let’s return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let’s vote next year for people who believe in America’s future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November.

If anybody’s a subscriber and can fill in the blanks, it would be much appreciated. One thing I’m continually struck by: Immigrants to this nation who were “Americans born in other countries” seem to have a firmer grip on what it is to be American than many of our native-born fellow citizens. I’m firmly convinced that this is the result of about 100 years of public school indoctrination by a system that was deliberately infiltrated by communist and socialist “true believers” like John Dewey and his acolytes, and who have turned out generations of “useful idiots.”

In answer to your question, Mark, yes, there was only one person pulling a trigger. Was there an organization behind them? Yes, no, and maybe. What those organizations may have been? I think you and I would disagree on that.

UPDATE: A reader who shall remain nameless unless I’m told otherwise has provided the missing text.

KevinLeave a comment

Kimber Ultra CDP II Range Report.

I just got back from the range. I took the CDP and my Classic Stainless, bought a box of American Eagle 230 grain hardball and had half a box of that already, and I brought about 350 of my favorite handload. That handload is the Speer 200 grain Gold Dot hollowpoint over 7.0 grains of Unique (use this load data at your own risk. It is a mild +P loading.)

The good news: The CDP worked perfectly and recoil was not unpleasant and easily manageable. The rounds went where I put them. Unfortunately I tended to put them low and left. Oh – and all that held true for the hardball ammo.

It didn’t like my handloads at all. The feedramp is a bit steep and the rounds hung up on the mouth of the hollowpoint. Ah, well. I’ve got some of Speer’s 230 grain hollowpoints for short barrels coming. We’ll see if they feed any better.

The thing that surprised me most was that if I took my sweet time and really concentrated, that little 3″ pistol is damned accurate. I probably shouldn’t be so surprised, since it has a hand-fitted bushingless barrel, but still – I’d say that 3″ groups at 25 yards should be attainable off the bench if the ammo is up to it.

“When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.”

KevinLeave a comment

 – New Jersey v. Pelleteri, 1996

Alternate title, “RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!”

Ah, the BATFu_ers have been busy little beavers again, ruining someone else’s life and livelihood for “not cooperating.” Ayn Rand put it best:

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, 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. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system! – Atlas Shrugged

And if you can’t get them for actually breaking one of those laws, all you have to do is convince a judge and jury that they have.

Here’s the background on the case of Mr. Albert K. Kwan, a gun collector in Bellevue, Washington:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales was an 18 year veteran of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Seattle. He was also, in his spare time, the president of the Seattle branch of CeaseFire, a gun control group. Mr. Wales was shot in his home the evening of October 11, 2001 and died the next day. The firearm used was a Makarov pistol, but ballistic examination of the recovered evidence lead the investigators to conclude that the pistol – a cheap, reliable, compact imported handgun – had been rebarreled. The original four-groove, right-hand twist barrel had been replaced with a six-groove, left-hand twist barrel. This led investigators to conclude that the barrel was one manufactured by Federal Arms Corporation. The FBI did a little research and determined that some 3500 of the suspected replacement barrels had been sold prior to AUSA Wales’ murder.

Initially the investigation focused on a man who had been prosecuted by Wales for fraud, but who had eventually had the charges dropped. When that investigation reached a dead end, they decided to track each and every replacement barrel down.

Apparently records showed that Mr. Kwan had purchased two of the “barrels of interest,” but when the FBI showed up, he could only produce one and stated that he did not remember having purchased the second. In addition, Mr. Kwan had lived only a few miles from the original suspect, and though they could not connect the two men, this set off alarm bells with the FBI. Mr. Kwan was apparently less than cooperative, and got himself arrested as a “material witness” in 2005. While he was in custody, with a little “inter-agency cooperation,” Mr. Kwan’s gun collection got a once-over by the BATF.

Things went completely to hell at that point.

Mr. Kwan was charged with illegal possession of a machinegun – in this case, a “re-weld” M-14 rifle that had been converted to semi-automatic. Another machinegun that he legally possessed – a Heckler & Koch VP70M machine pistol with a detachable stock – was also confiscated, along with several other firearms from his collection. Cue now Heartless Libertarian for more on the case:

Now, about that M-14. Here’s what the ATF agent had to do to it to make it fire more than one round per trigger pull. Testimony comes from the Oct 10, 2006 dead tree edition of Gun Week (article not available online.)

“I examined (the firearm) and determined that it was originally manufactured as a machinegun by the Winchester Company in New Haven, Connecticut. (The rifle) can accept machinegun components and has machinegun components installed, but the engagement surface of the sear release has been removed, and the sear release has been welded to the selector shaft. In this condition, (the rifle) is functional as a semi-automatic firearm, but the machinegun parts have been locked in place by the welded sear release/selector shaft.

“To determine if (the rifle) could be readily restored to shoot in an automatic manner, I used a multipurpose rotary tool with a cutting wheel to cut through the sear release. I then removed the sear release, selector shaft, and selector-shaft lock from (the rifle) and installed a sear release, selector shaft, selector spring, and selector from an M-14 machinegun.”

The technician did not modify the receiver during all of reassembly, and then fired the gun to see if it would fire full auto. At that point, he wrote, “I discovered that the sear … did not have an engagement surface for the sear release.” So, he replaced the trigger group of the rifle with another trigger group which contained the sear with an engagement surface and eventually got the rifle to fire three rounds with a single press of the trigger.

The jury had more common sense than the ATF and decided that this did not meet the standard of “readily convertible.”

But the .gov never goes to trial with only one charge. They also charged Mr. Kwan with possession of a short-barreled rifle. How? Well, in addition to the (legally possessed) VP70M and two detachable stocks Mr. Kwan also owned a semi-automatic VP70Z.

Put a buttstock on the semi-automatic pistol, and you’ve got an unregistered short-barreled rifle!

Or so their “logic” went.

Except we’ve already been all through this with Thompson/Center and their Contender model.

But the jury didn’t know about this, so:

Bellevue collector convicted of firearms charge

A Bellevue gun collector once arrested as a material witness in the 2001 slaying of Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales was convicted Thursday of illegally possessing a short-barreled rifle, a felony that will require him to give up his arsenal.

However, a federal jury acquitted Albert K. Kwan, 53, of another charge of unlawful possession of a machine gun.

The jury deliberated for three hours after a three-day trial.

Kwan, who is not suspected of killing Wales, has been a person of interest because sales records indicate he purchased two Makarov gun barrels in the mid-1990s that were like the one used in the slaying of the longtime federal prosecutor. Kwan has turned over one such barrel but insists he does not remember buying a second one. Prosecutors said he failed a polygraph test about the second barrel.

The judge, however, has apparently been made aware:

Gun collector to get new trial

A federal judge has granted a new trial to Albert K. Kwan, a Bellevue gun collector who was found guilty of illegally possessing a short-barrel rifle after a three-day jury trial in June.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly granted the new trial Aug. 3 after concluding the jury received flawed instructions about the short-barrel rifle charge. Joseph Conte, Kwan’s attorney, contended the jury should have been told that a pistol and stock seized from Kwan had to be connected in order for the jury to conclude he illegally possessed a short-barrel rifle. Zilly agreed with Conte’s argument Friday, according to Conte and a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle.

Now Mr. Kwan did fail a polygraph that he volunteered to take. Here’s a newsflash for you. I’ve failed a polygraph, too. And I’ll never take another one. In my case it was a matter of someone at a place I worked stealing cash from the registers. I got fired. Other people got fired. The theft continued after I and a couple of others were let go. Apparently the polygraph didn’t catch the guy that was doing it, but he sure tagged at least one innocent.

Mr. Kwan’s crime was apparently being uncooperative. The reaction of the FBI was to arrest him, hold him for 23 days, and bring in the F-troop who then manufactured charges against him.

This is known as “justice.” It’s not strictly limited to gun owners, but we sure seem to be high on the .gov’s dance card.

Like the New Jersey court decision in Pelleteri said, “When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.”

UPDATE: Via Dave Hardy, a link to the decision granting a retrial. This piece has been edited to reflect the facts as related in that decision.

More Validation from the Left

KevinLeave a comment

(And more references to old posts, too!) Back in October of last year I wrote a really long piece, The United Federation of Planets. It was another piece on the topic of the “reality” of rights, but in that piece I wrote this:

The “state of nature” is the ultimate objective reality. In it, people will do whatever is necessary to survive, or they don’t survive. In point of fact, throughout history – even today – people have not only defended their lives, liberty and property, they have taken life, liberty, and property from others not of their society. And they have done so secure in the knowledge that their philosophy tells them that it’s the right thing to do. This is true of the The Brow-Ridged Hairy People That Live Among the Distant Mountains, the Egyptians, the Inca, the Maori, the British Empire, and the United States of America. It’s called warfare, and it’s the use of lethal force against people outside ones own society. Rand explained that:

A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

That’s a critical definition. If a society truly believes that:

…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

then that society cannot wage war. It cannot even defend itself – because to take human life, to destroy property, even to take prisoners of war is anathema to such a society, for it would be in violation of the fundamental rights of the victims of such action. (See: the Moriori. Or the Amish.)

This creates a cognitive bind, then, unless you rationalize that the rights you believe in are valid for your society, but not necessarily for those outside it. Those members that violate the sanctions on freedom of action within the society are treated differently from those outside the society that do the same. Those within the society are handled by the legal system, and are subject to capture, judicial review, and punishment under law, whether that’s issuance of an “Anti-Social Behavior Order” in London, or a death by stoning in Tehran. Those outside of a society who act against that society may be ignored, or may risk retaliatory sanctions up to and including open warfare, depending on the situation. (See: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons.)

In every successful society the majority must share a common philosophy and believe that philosophy is superior to all others. It must, or that society will change. The philosophy of any society can be one of aggressive evangelism, or quiet comfort, or anywhere in between, but successful societies are marked by one key characteristic: confidence.

—

If you examine (the Left) closely, it has wrapped itself in a philosophy that attempts to extend all of the West’s “rights of man” to the entire world – up to and including those who are actively seeking our destruction, and the Left holds itself as morally superior for doing so. Attempting to intercept terrorist communications is “illegal domestic wiretapping” – a violation of the right to privacy. Media outlets showing acknowledged Islamist propaganda is exercise of the right of free speech, but suppression of images from the 9/11 attacks – specifically, the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center, or its victims jumping to their deaths – is not censorship. The humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is described as a “human rights violation,” as is the detainment of prisoners at Guantanimo without trial. For the Left, the war between the West and radical Islamists should not be handled as a war – it should be handled as a police matter – as a society would handle internal violators. Our enemies shouldn’t be killed, they should be, at worst, captured and counseled. Our enemies are not at fault, WE are, because we are hypocrites that don’t live up to our professed belief in absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights. If we just lived up to our professed beliefs, the rest of the world would not hate us. Yet to believe this, the Left must ignore objective reality. It acts, as the Moriori acted, to negotiate and appease, because that’s what its philosophy demands – and the results would be identical.

(Bold emphasis added.)

My validation came in an August 8 New York Times (natch) op-ed by General Wesley Clark and Kal Raustiala:

Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers

THE line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals. (My emphasis.)

The federal courts are increasingly wary of this approach, and rightly so. In a stinging rebuke, this summer a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., struck down the government’s indefinite detention of a civilian, Ali al-Marri, by the military. The case illustrates once again the pitfalls of our current approach.

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.

Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts.

Oh HORSESHIT!! By treating them as combatants we allow ourselves to unleash military firepower and dispense with the legal chains that go along with judicial process.

And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

As targets for JDAMs and Hellfire missiles, Marines and Army Rangers rather than FBI agents and Federal Marshalls?

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

Really? It’s worked so well so far.

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not “unlawful combatant” but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

No, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is “targets.”

The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America’s legitimacy in the eyes of others. Almost 50 years ago, at the height of the cold war, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians.”

Here I can agree – in principle.

A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that its members are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wields frightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite military detention. The Marri case turned on this issue. Mr. Marri is a legal resident of the United States and a citizen of Qatar; the government contends that he is a sleeper agent of Al Qaeda. For the last four years he has been held as an enemy combatant at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

The federal court held that while the government can arrest and convict civilians, under current law the military cannot seize and detain Mr. Marri. Nor would it necessarily be constitutional to do so, even if Congress expressly authorized the military detention of civilians. At the core of the court’s reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants are distinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly be proper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of a friendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.

Here is one of the points I was illustrating in United Federation. When one’s philosophy runs afoul of objective reality, something’s gotta give. Wesley and Kal want to continue to embrace the philosophy and deny objective reality – the reality being that treating terrorists as mere criminals allows them to use our civility as a weapon against us. It’s a tactic they enthusiastically and willingly exploit.

Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not “combatants.” They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.

“Especially heinous” – another point of agreement. But they are making war on us, and to refuse to acknowledge that seems to me to be wishful thinking at best, suicidal at worst. They’re not out for plunder. Their operatives are not afraid of dying. They want to kill as many of us as they can, as horrifically and often as they can.

They are not pirates, they aren’t even the equivalent of the barbarian hordes that ushered in the Dark Ages. They’re more like a plague than anything else, except this is a plague that hates.

We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security.

Criminal prosecution is supposed to result in correction – i.e.: imprisonment. When do convicted terrorists get parole? How many will end up on Death Row and go through endless appeals?

We deem them “unlawful combatants” because they are conducting warfare without obeying the rules of war that formal nations have agreed upon. Walter Russell Mead in his essay The Jacksonian Tradition explained it this way:

Jacksonian America has clear ideas about how wars should be fought, how enemies should be treated, and what should happen when the wars are over. It recognizes two kinds of enemies and two kinds of fighting: honorable enemies fight a clean fight and are entitled to be opposed in the same way; dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off.

An honorable enemy is one who declares war before beginning combat; fights according to recognized rules of war, honoring such traditions as the flag of truce; treats civilians in occupied territory with due consideration; and — a crucial point– refrains from the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Those who surrender should be treated with generosity. Adversaries who honor the code will benefit from its protections, while those who want a dirty fight will get one.

So far, our side has done its dead-level best to fight honorably against a dishonorable enemy. The Left wants to rein even that in, and restrict us as much as possible to using law-enforcement techniques against an enemy that will use every advantage it can get.

The difficulty in separating terrorists from non-combatants is their greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Treating terrorists as unlawful combatants runs terrible risks of abusing truly innocent people. This is where our philosophy runs up against objective reality and is found wanting. So we have a terrible choice – do we, once again, put aside our beliefs for a time and do what is necessary to survive, or do we give every advantage to an enemy bent on destroying us? Or, more likely, do we tear our society asunder under the stress of our collective cognitive dissonance and the inevitable resulting loss of confidence?

My money’s on the latter. So is (or was) bin Laden’s.

(h/t: Jackalope Pursuivant)

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day.

From Cabinboy at Western Rifle Shooters:

Just remember – never, ever get on the government bus to the “emergency shelter/evacuation camp”.

Once you do, you are irretrievably finished.

I know it sounds paranoid, but after New Orleans, not so much any more. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” isn’t the joke it used to be.

KevinLeave a comment

Another Story from the Place Where Great Britain Used to Be

(Via Oscar Poppa)

Burglar dies after falling from top-floor window following confrontation with homeowner

by JAYA NARAIN Last updated at 17:49pm on 9th August 2007

A homeowner was arrested after a burglar plunged from the balcony of his top-floor flat and later died in hospital.

The intruder suffered head injuries and died in hospital after falling around 30ft on to a concrete path.

Now, for most of us the knee-jerk reaction would be “Them’s the risks you take, chum.” After all, in at least some jurisdictions here in the states a homeowner is legally justified in shooting a burglar upon discovery, and that often causes severe injury and even death.

But not in formerly Great Britain:

Patrick Walsh, 56, awoke to find an intruder in his flat on Corkland Road in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, south Manchester.

Police say “following an exchange of words” the 43-year-old suspect fell from the fourth floor window on to the pavement below.

He suffered massive injuries from the fall, at around 6.10am on Monday.

The man was taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary with serious head injuries before being transferred to Hope Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at about 11am today.

Police conducted a detailed forensic examination of the flat after the incident.

Walsh was arrested on suspicion of causing serious bodily harm and bailed until November pending further police inquirers.

Mr. Walsh, awakened from a sound sleep and having done nothing other than defend his property has been arrested for that crime. It’s bizzaro world.

His solicitor, Victor Wozny, said today: “My client is not at liberty to say anything because he is under police bail.

“However we appreciate that the public view might be that this is a man arrested in his own home defending his own property.”

Might be, might not. Doesn’t matter. The Crown Prosecution Service doesn’t listen to the public. Pretty much, neither does the rest of the civil government.

A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester Police said, “Inquiries are ongoing to establish the circumstances surrounding this incident.

“A 56-year-old man from Chorlton has been arrested on suspicion of section 18 assault and bailed, pending further inquiries.”

I wonder if this Inquiry will last six weeks like the one 63 year-old Thomas O’Connor suffered through before the Crown Persecution, er Prosecution service concluded that “it is not believed we would be able to disprove a case of self defence” against Mr. O’Connor, who was blind and suffered from arthritis and heart problems. Or instead will they go ahead and charge Mr. Walsh and convince him to plead to manslaughter instead of risking a murder conviction, as was done to Brett Osborn? After all, as Mr. Osborn’s lawyer explained, in England:

The law…does not require the intention to kill for a prosecution for murder to succeed. All that is required is an intention to cause serious bodily harm. That intention can be fleeting and momentary. But if it is there in any form at all for just a second – that is, if the blow you struck was deliberate rather than accidental – you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison.

Moreover…while self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, the Court of Appeal has ruled that if the force you use is not judged to have been reasonable – if a jury, that is, decides it was disproportionate – then you are guilty of murder. A conviction for murder automatically triggers the mandatory life sentence. There are no exceptions.

Mr. Osborn decided not to risk it, rather than trust his fate to his fellow subjects.

I’m curious as to what Mr. Walsh’s fate holds for him.

The pair argued and the confrontation moved towards the rear window of the flat.

It is believed the intruder then smashed the window and clambered out on to a narrow ledge and fell to the ground.

Mr Walsh phoned police and at around 6.30am officers found the man on the ground outside the smart Victorian apartment block in Chorlton-cum-Hardy,

He was taken to hospital with serious head injuries.

Officers arrested Mr Walsh on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and are trying to establish whether the intruder was forced out of the window.

Arrest first, investigate later. Nice SOP.

The arrest is expected to fuel arguments about the rights of householders to defend themselves against burglars.

Gee, ya THINK??

Patrick Walsh

Under suspicion: Patrick Walsh yesterday

The issue has been high on the law and order agenda since farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead a burglar in 1999.

Following the Martin affair the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers said any householder can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime.

A neighbour said: “Police arrived in what seemed to be minutes and were there for the whole day.

“It’s shocking to find out what has happened but people shouldn’t break into other people’s houses.”

Another resident said: “I presume we will have to respect the burglar’s rights while his victim has the nightmare of court hanging over his head. It all seems so unfair.”

That’s because it is unfair. That’s what happens in a pacifist society.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said they had been called following reports that an intruder had fallen from a top-floor flat.

“Following an exchange of words, the alleged burglar was found unconscious on the pavement outside the flat.

“It is believed that he had fallen from the fourth-floor window.”

Mr Walsh has been released on bail until November. If charged and convicted he could face a life sentence.

Because he had the temerity to defend himself in a culture that has had pacifism forced upon it.

Australian blogger Tim Lambert and I have had several long, involved exchanges over whether British subjects can legally defend themselves. I don’t know what conclusion he’s reached, but mine is that – while it’s possible – it doesn’t pay to bet that way. And, moreover, the British media, in cooperation with the Crown Prosecution Service, runs stories like this that ensure the general public knows just how risky defending yourself can be. Tim even admitted as much in the last sentence of one of his posts, but blamed it not on the Crown Prosecution Service, but upon us “Gullible Gunners.” After all, who wants to spend even five years in jail – much less life – for defending yourself?

Instead, British subjects should heed the advice of the British police on how to be a good victim:

If we were attacked, we were to assume a defensive posture, such as raising our hands to block an attack. The reason was (and she spelled it out in no uncertain terms) that if a witness saw the incident and we were to attempt to defend ourselves by fighting back, the witness would be unable to tell who the agressor was. However, if we rolled up in a ball, it would be quite clear who the victim was.

That way you only risk injury or death to yourself or your loved ones. The criminal will, of course, be unharmed.

No wonder 4,000 people a week are trying to flee Britain.

UPDATE, 8/12 via Civis Proeliator:

No action to be taken against householder over intruder fall

A householder arrested after a suspected burglar died falling from the top floor window of his flat will have no further action taken against him, police confirmed today.

Patrick Walsh, 56, awoke in the early hours of last Monday to find an intruder in his flat on Corkland Road in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, south Manchester.

Police said “following an exchange of words”, the 43-year-old suspect fell from the fourth floor window on to the pavement below.

He suffered massive injuries from the fall and died in hospital on Thursday.

Mr Walsh was arrested and questioned by detectives while forensic officers conducted a detailed examination of his flat.

He was bailed until November, but police have now concluded no further action against him is necessary.

A post-mortem examination revealed the dead man died from injuries conducive with a fall and they are not treating the death as suspicious. The case has been passed to the coroner.

A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester Police said: “The 56-year-old man from Chorlton, who was arrested on suspicion of section 18 assault, has had his bail cancelled and no further action will be taken against him.”

Hey! It didn’t take six weeks! Looks like Mr. Walsh rolled a seven this time.

But I wonder if he’ll hesitate before defending himself if anything like this ever happens to him again. And in the place that used to be Great Britain, the odds of that happening are pretty high.