Random Brain Droppings...

...on millennials, and the law.

First, the millennials:

Airlines should offer millennial flights (or, someone should start 'Millennial Air'.)

Features:

• All first-class seating
• Free food - locally sourced, organic, all vegan
• Free drinks - Pabst Blue Ribbon, and a wide selection of craft IPAs
• Free wi-fi, with no connection to any triggers or micro-aggressions
• Guaranteed safe space once on board and for the duration of the flight.
• And, free airfare - all costs paid by the air crew, who are, of course, the 1%
• All non, non-white passengers required to sit in the back of the plane
• In coach seats
• All non, non-white passengers required to shut the f*** up.

I know it makes  no sense. but then, look at the market.

On the law...

...started with this throw-away response:

Found this from @BobbiJoR to go with my morning coffee:

...and we're off:*

And it was about here that I got frustrated with trying to get her to clarify what she was after, which isn't germaine to this post. What it seemed to boil down to is this:

"I'm worried about lack of due process and too may laws."

 * I've reconstructed this as best I can, getting what I think is the gist of the conversation. Any errors are mine.

I'm poking about in her timeline, and it interesting stuff, but it seems incomplete:

Who are the other 8%? I'm thinking the "power players". My guess is 8% would be about right, since it seems most drug convictions wold be for possession/use.

My other guess is, most federal convictions are for white collar crime. Aaaand, the guess would be wrong, according to The Overview of Federal Cases, Fiscal Year 2012, Schmitt and Dukes, Office of Research and Data.  Interesting reading. I skimmed it, and I'm not sure if it refutes or supports @JessSmith_TPC or not.

Definitions are certainly in order, which is what irritated my in my exchange with @BibbiJoR. Here, I want to know the definition of "violent offense", and how many of those offenses were part of, oh, say, a drug offense. Thre is no category for 'violent crimes' in the Overview, so I'd like to know where @JessSmoth_TPC got that number. It does appear that the feds slice and dice their data in a myriad of ways, so she quite possibly has a report that I haven't found.

More importantly, I'd really like to know what #JusticeForAll is about. Time to poke around some more, after some needed work gets done.

It Begins in Earnest

Drudge links to Breitbart and Politico about Obama's new rules imposed by Executive Order.  It seems to boil down to your doctor may report that you are "mentally ill" to the NICS (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System), thereby disallowing you from purchasing a gun.

I see three problems with this right off the top.  First, it sets a precedent for sharing health information to people and organizations not directly involved with your personal health care, which was the whole point of HIPAA.

Second, it lumps the mentally ill in with criminals.  Strictly speaking, that means you have two flavors of unrelated data instances in the same database. I think any competent DBA would tell you that this is "Bad". (Think of the your liquor store guy telling the DMV what your weekly alcohol purchase rate is.)  It also reminds me of lessons we should have learned from the 20th century, especially from the 20s and 30s onward.  (I'm looking at *you*, National Socialists and Communists!)

My third concern is the total absence of any due process in the infringement of a Constitutional right.  A recurring theme of 2A supporters is that these "mass shootings" (Newton, Sandy Hook et. al.) might have been prevented by better mental health care, not by more gun laws.  And, I agree.  I think (IMHO) that someone who is diagnosed as incompetent or dangerous to others shouldn't have weapons, or maybe even sharp objects.  (I'm looking at *you*, Charles Manson!)

I think that abrogating *any* Constitutional right by bureaucratic fiat is morally wrong and illegal.  If I were to deteriorate to a point where arming me is truly a bad idea, I would still expect a hearing to determine my competence, one wherein I was represented by counsel and a good shrink.

Being denied that (or any) right on the word of an individual, enforced by an anonymous database is simply not American.

(Gerard has a longer post by O'l Remus detaining how he sees the resistnce unfolding.  His take: it won't.  It will be a death by a thousand bureaucratic paper cuts. Go RTWT.)

Merida Grown Up...

...and the feminists don't like it!

Apparently, someone at Disney/Pixar decided to upgrade Princess Merida for the Disney "Princess" collection.  So, she's a bit older, and a bit curvier, which can happen when girls grow up.  Watching a daughter turn into a young woman can be startling (if not downright shocking), but that's what they do!  Especially if, like me, you put a kid on an airplane, and four months later the young woman returns in her place.  Sadly, growing up to be attractive seems deemed 'sexualization' by the feminist cohort. But it's what little girls (and little boys) do.

The most quoted critic is the film's former co-director, Brenda Chapman, who was replaced during the film's production.(See the UK's Guardian and The Hollywood Reporter for more.)

From all the heat, light and noise, you'd think Disney had let Merida go the route of Miley Cyrus.
 Speaking of whom, I couldn't find quite the same outrage about her VMA appearance as I did about Merida.  Here are my searches at the Guardian and the Reporter.  Yes, there were critical articles, but no one was espousing that Miley turn back to her Hanna Montana persona, either.

Silly me.  I still think beauty in any form should be celebrated, not denigrated.  Yes, not every girl will grow up to be a Hollywood "princess" (which is actually a Good Thing).  And not every boy will grow up to be a leading man, which is also good.  Parents need to instill a solid sense of self-worth (not self-esteem) in their children, and teach them how to be the best person they can be.  I have seen both men and women who are outside of the leading man/princess ideal, who have learned to be their best, and who present  themselves quite well.  As a result, I find them handsome or attractive.

It's much more about character,  and much less on looks.

Liberty Maniacs

From Ars Technica:

For 10 years, a Minnesota man has been selling T-shirts, mugs, and other items with slogans like “Department of Homeland Stupidity” and “The NSA: the only part of the government that listens.”

On Tuesday LibertyManiacs owner Dan McCall sued those agencies, arguing that he has a First Amendment right to parody the DHS, the NSA, and other government offices, and that he should be allowed to use the relevant seals.

Go.  Support them.

Cheese Nazis....

...from Fox:

Florida official tells Christian charity to choose between Jesus and cheese

A Florida ministry that feeds the poor said a state agriculture department official told them they would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read “Jesus is Lord” and stopping giving Bibles to the needy.
“They told us they could no longer allow us to have any religious information where the USDA food is going to be,” said Kay Daly, executive director of the Christian Service Center.

Florida is saying its the USDA's call.  The USDA is saying, according to the article, that basically as long as a religious organization is not discriminating against people of different faiths, religious display is OK

I didn't vote for him.

P S A

From Maggie's Farm

Gerard...

...is back:

Pennsylvania Gun "Control" Bills

I did a short piece over at the Window blog about an e-mail I sent to my state representative, Stan Saylor:

PA House Bill 521

House Bill 521 (2013) would require all persons holding a License to Carry hold liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.  When I heard about this, I immediately wrote to Rep. Stan Saylor (who is, it turns out, my across-the-parking lot neighbor).

Rep Saylor,

This is what I refer to as a "nibble"... a "feel-good" means of nibbling away at citizen's rights.  It is an underhanded attempt to make it more difficult (in this case, expensive) for citizens to exercise their Constitutional right to own and carry firearms.

Please vote "No".

Thank you,
leelu

After the protest last Saturday, I decided to see what else our busy little state people had in mind for us.  Turns out, quite a bit!  Aside from the liability insurance ploy, they're proposing:

(Links to the full text of the bills.)

HB 517 - an "assault weapons" ban.  Like elsewhere, the criteria are all pretty much cosmetic.  It starts out with this:

"(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "assault weapon" means:
 (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the other following specified
(list follows)

I don't know if this means my semi-automatic .22, which is incapable of full auto fire.

The bill then goes into a full Chinese menu of cosmetic features, any two together resulting in the wepon being banned.  I want to know how law enforcement is expected to remember all of this??

HB 239 - a firearms registration act:

"Section 3.  Registration.

(a)  General rule.--All firearms in this Commonwealth shall
be registered in accordance with this section. It shall be the
duty of a person owning or possessing any firearm to cause the
firearm to be registered. No person within this Commonwealth may
possess, harbor, have under the person's control, transfer,
offer for sale, sell, give, deliver or accept any firearm unless
the person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for
the firearm. No person within this Commonwealth may possess,

harbor, have under the person's control, transfer, offer for
sale, sell, deliver or accept any firearm which is
unregisterable under this act."

Further along, the best part:

"Each person holding a registration certificate shall:

(3)  Keep any firearm in the registrant's possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, gun safe or similar device unless the firearm is in the      registrant's immediate possession and control while at the registrant's place of residence or business or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within this Commonwealth. This paragraph shall not apply to law enforcement personnel or security personnel while in the course of their employment."

Does that supercede my carry permit?  Will I have to keep my pistol unloaded while I carry it?  How much will registration cost?

Next up, HB 518 - Imposes a duty to retreat

"Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general principles of justification, further providing for definitions, for use of force in self-protection, for use of force for the protection of property and for use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others.

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this
      section:

    (iii) if the actor knows that he can avoid the
     necessity of using such force with complete safety by
     retreating; or

     (iv) if the actor was instructed by a peace officer
     or public safety dispatcher to not pursue another person."

Those two phrases are scattered throughout the existing bill.

I suppose if a police officer said "Don't follow him", I'd be inclined to stay put.  Don't know if I need that spelled out.  But, if some shag-nasty is coming after me with a knife, I would prefer not to have to be forced to spend time figuring out if I'll be safe under the bed or not. Thinking about that, versus the immediate threat, seem to be, well, unsafe.

And, don't worry.  The state Senate has gotten into the act too, with SB 435.

SB 435 - "Assault Weapons Ban"

"Class 1 assault weapon." Any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic center fire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon's action, a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock; a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher; or a forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic center fire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches.

(3) A semiautomatic center fire rifle with a fixed magazine capable of holding over ten rounds of ammunition.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and a threaded barrel; a second handgrip; a capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip; or a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircling, the barrel allowing the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer's hand, except for a slide enclosing the barrel.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having the capacity to accept over ten rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun having a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a thumbhole stock or a vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines.

(8) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

"Large capacity magazine." Any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition. The term does not include any of the following:

(1) a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;

2) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

(3) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever action firearm.

Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days."

Nibbles, as I said to Mr. Saylor. I'm gratified to find that his name is on none of the House bills.

I shall be paying him a visit, soonest!

Day of Resistance

What started out as the morning dog walk tuned into a peaceful assembly/protest.  Who knew??

I didn't know anything about it until I turned the corner onto Main St. and saw this:

We cut  the walk short, and went home.  I swapped my Breakers cap for my NRA cap, and went over to join in and get some photos:

The crowd across the intersection.

Two speeches were given.  Acoustics were crap, but I caught quotations from the Declaration of Independence.  We were exhorted to read and know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  He said (I paraphrase) "The Second Amendment is the gun law for this country."  We recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

A couple of folks came bearing arms.

Nifty signs

I haven't been to a demonstration since the 80s.  This one seemed to me to be important to participate in.  The direction President Obama is taking this country is wrong.  No government should have as much control of peoples' live has his assumed, from health care to unconstitutional laws trying to disarm the citizenry.

I have not been this afraid since the early 60s, when I wondered every day if  the Russians would push the button down.  I do not want the sheriff coming to my door to inspect my guns.  I want to afford to shoot  them, which means nothing but sales tax on ammo.  I don't need expensive liability insurance because I own guns.
The people I met today seemed decent, rational, and patriotic.  Several people recommended a particular gun club to me, and I plan on joining.  I don't want to be alone in this mess.

Main and Broadway is a busy intersection, PA routes 24 and 74, from the MD state line, up to York and Carlisle.  We got a lot of support from passers-by, honking horns, waving, and giving thumbs-up.  I'm happy be where the kind of government intrusion Obama seems bent on will be resisted.  I am glad I wound up here.

(Cross posted over the Window on Red Lion)

Muir. Nail. Head. (and Nibbles)

No assembly required.

"Safety" and "the children" are the "nibbles" that are and will be used to diminish our freedom, one victim (and one nibble) at a time.

Gotta say, I say I saw this kind of thing coming back in the 70's, when the park rangers banned BASE jumping and hang gliding from the top of El Capitan in Yosemite, because someone got themselves killed. I did not connect the dots from that to basic constitutional rights, though, nor did I see malicious intent behind it.

And they used to call me "cynical".

Update:  Joan of Argghh, who is posting at Primordial Slack, has this:

My comment there:

A few years back, the school I worked at had a near miss with this – neighbors complained about one of our students who lived in their apartment complex, cop came out to the apartment, and discovered that our student was planning a shooting spree at the school. The BCPD came out and talked with us a couple of times – the gist was, lock door, lights off, gather (he didn’t say “huddle”) in a corner out of the line of sight from the window by the door (each classroom had one). He clearly told us not to run, because of the possibility of being seen by the shooter or a potential accomplice.

And yes, we were a “target rich environment”, er, “gun-free zone”.