It’s not often that the Brady Bunch issues a press release that contains good news but here it is:

A shooting range here has announced a ban on use of its shooting facilities by employees of the California Department of Justice because the Department is supporting two bills in the State legislature that the club opposes.

The bills are that ridiculous bullet identification bill and the bill that makes the gun stamp the bullet with a serial number. The club is the Folsom Shooting Club’s Sacramento Valley Shooting Center. A letter can be seen here. And here is their website.

Excellent. I also wish all gun manufacturers would stop selling to California agencies, like Barrett did.

Good. Dog fighting is a deplorable practice. However, I found it odd that a grand champion pit bull went for $60K. Does it come with a Mercedes?

My faith in them protecting me is minimized by the fact they won’t protect each other:

A surveillance video shows that the partner of a police officer who was shot three times during a car stop last week in Brooklyn ran away and, for several minutes, failed to help the wounded officer, a police official said yesterday.

I found it because it linked to me but this blog is interesting. It’s a blog by a food economist (we have those?) about US food policy.

Charles Hurt reports that Congress has censors:

Only in this town of lawyers along the Potomac can politicians utter statements that were, according to official history, never spoken.

When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers mandated the recording of Congress’ proceedings, but its form was left to the lawmakers who established the Congressional Record and the rules that allow them to clean up regretful remarks, miscues and misstatements before they are published.

So, whenever a member of congress says something stupid or offensive, the record of it is wiped. Too bad there’s not such a feature for their stupid actions.

Note: This is a reprint from guest posting at No Silence Here.

A very somber heh.

The Mountain Press:

A government’s right of eminent domain was never intended to give local officials an absolute, unlimited power to take somebody’s property for virtually anything. It is supposed to be used primarily to permit government to pay fair market value for land needed for public improvements, such as roads or utilities. Yet in recent years some governments have sought to use their eminent domain authority to obtain land for other purposes, from a new Wal-Mart Supercenter to a shopping complex. While those developments would serve the public good, they are private enterprise efforts.

Yup. At issue is the city of Pigeon Forge (where Dollywood is for you non-locals) is trying to take private property to build a parking complex.

This game is called Guess who’s lying. A local police officer shot a woman’s dog (which the press dutifully points out is a pit bull mix). The pit bull mix was shot in the head with a .40 caliber handgun, was treated by a vet, and is still alive [Damn, tough dog or weak ammo – Ed.]. So, on to the game:

Blount County Deputy Lt. Patrick England claims:

England was following up a missing child report Sunday, near the Wallace Harris Avenue residence of Sybil Patty, owner of the dog.

According to a report, by deputy Steve Blankenship, England “approached” the front door of Patty’s residence. When she opened the door the dog ran out and she attempted to grab it. England reported the dog ran at him in an aggressive manner, and that he attempted to shove the dog off of him with his hand, but missed.

England also reported that he began to back out of the yard toward the corner of Wallace Harris Avenue and Bramble wood Drive, and that the dog continued to make “aggressive advances” toward him. When the dog was within a short distance, England reported he drew his weapon and fired one round striking the dog in the “top left of the head.”

Versus what the owner and witnesses say:

Witnesses disputed England’s report.

Patty called the dog back, and Petey turned and began walking toward the house, according to Davidson. The officer followed and the dog turned around and barked, and the officer hit him with a flashlight, said Davidson. Patty thought the dog was hit with a stick.

Witnesses are unsure what the dog was hit with, and there is no mention of the dog being struck in Blankenship’s report.

So, England, genius that he his, follows a dog who was dutifully defending his property but told to retreat by its owner. Then, he hits the dog. Not smart. And:

The dog wasn’t closing in on England, according to Davidson and Johnnie Dover, a Howard Jones Road resident who said she saw the shooting. She said that had England stopped and given Patty a chance, she would have gotten the dog back in the house.

Dover didn’t think England would have shot the dog if he wasn’t a pit bull.

“All because he’s got (pit) bulldog in him,” Dover said. “That’s a bunch of bull — all pit bulls aren’t mean.”

You can call the Blount County Sheriff’s Department at (865) 273-5000. Or you can go here and send them an electronic message.

Senate committee OKs new FBI powers.

The renewal of the Patriot Act, it’s been waiting in the shadows until now, and here it is. Should it not be voted back in the bill is scheduled to sunset late this year, so Congress is setting forward a new bill to ammend those powers and renew the bill itself. The usual suspects are once more pushing the bill out onto the Senate floor, but the committee members are still adding ammendments to it.

Word from CNN is that these Senate members are trying to impose additional limits on the bill’s powers and make it easier for the use of these powers to be challenged.

I guess the only thing to do is write your Senators. Personally, I’ll just wait and see…

Blogs are definitely the small furry mammals running around the feet of dinosaurs. – David Codrea.

David wrote that in an email to me once. David is the Co-founder of GunTruths and Citizens of America. He has also written for Guns and Ammo, Handguns and is currently the field editor for Guns. He also maintains a blog called The War on Guns.

You see, I contacted David a while back regarding various gun magazines. I buy a few of those a year but much less than I used to. The reason I buy fewer is because of gun blogs. By the time I read something in a gun magazine about a new product, I’ve already seen it at any one of the many gun blogs.

Even issues regarding guns pop up faster on blogs. I’m convinced that the inspiration for a recent Massad Ayoob article on the jamming issues the US military is having with the Beretta pistols they carry as a result of buying low quality magazines came from blogs. This article appeared in last month’s issue of a gun magazine I bought. Problem was, it was old news. Mark covered it almost a year ago. Shortly after, The Comedian was already advocating sending our boys overseas new springs to remedy the problem.

By the time the article printed, it was old news. And it’s not just gun magazines. I’m sure other net-savvy folks get more current information on-line from message boards and websites than magazines about their particular hobby of choice.

And the media too. By the time the evening news comes on, I already know about every story they cover (except those hokey investigative, sensationalist reports that I don’t care about and are usually wrong). When I picked up the newspaper this morning, I already knew what it would say. In fact, I said most of it yesterday.

As a result of these observations, I recommended to Dave that gun magazines should do a feature story on gun bloggers and that those magazines should set up their own blogs. David told me that gun magazines are struggling to maintain their core mission and make a profit. Also, there is a fear of losing some readership if they do an all on-line format as older gun types probably aren’t particularly savvy with Al Gore’s Internets. As such, the resources weren’t there for this particular venture. My suggestion would be to blog the articles as regularly as the come in and then once a month make some hard copies to distribute for those who don’t read on-line.

The problem, of course, is that catering to the print audience will only work short term. More and more people are becoming like me and getting their news, information, and commentary on-line before the newspapers, TeeVee and specialty magazines have even formatted their graphics.

Is old media dead? By no means whatsoever. Magazines, TeeVee and newspapers deal in mass audiences. A gun blogger gets a few thousand hits per day and that’s if the blogger is fairly popular. Blogs need to draw an audience while old media needs to keep one. Blogs in total, however, get massive readership. Blogs in the aggregate are a force to be reckoned with. An individual blog, not so much.

Blogs are definitely the small furry mammals running around the feet of dinosaurs.

This is another reprint of a post from guest blogging at No Silence Here.

Nope, none here. Apparently, some folks out on a boat used a shotgun to thwart pirates (yes, real pirates) but the press doesn’t mention that.

No, really:

Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arab television network famous for airing images of beheadings and mutilated bodies, rejected a 30-second commercial from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals showing abuse of Australian sheep.

Les has the skinny on the investigator the Knoxville Titty Council paid to go buy lap dances. He also has links to the guy’s report.

Gunner has links to some contests where you can win guns and gun related program activities right here on Al Gore’s Internets.

The Geek is pimping some shirts and other stuff.

Ravenwood notes NY’s proposed 50 caliber ban will ban some shotguns.

Heartless Libertarian provides some analysis regarding US v. Stewart in light of the horrendous Raich decision.

He plans on appealing.

Jeff has the latest on gun bias in the media.

In Illinois, there is now a 24 hour waiting period for Tasers and other stun guns. And background checks.

Speaking of Tasers, Les wrote a while back:

People today are naming their sons Colt and Ruger to evoke toughness and an Old West sensibility. In a dozen years or two parents who want their kids to have a tough name that’s futuristic will name their sons Taser.

I tend to think not for the same reason no one names their kid Rape Whistle or Pepper Spray.

A 28 year police veteran being interviewed:

As a police officer, weren’t guns the enemy?

Douglas: No, never. I always wanted armed civilians, but I wanted them trained. Period. You learn early in your career that you’re not going to be there when the murderer shows up, or the rapist. So I’m all for training the civilian population.

And anyone carrying a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood:

U.S. customs agents confiscated the weapons and fingerprinted Despres. Then they let him into the United States.

And they found out he killed someone. My personal favorite bit:

Anthony conceded it “sounds stupid” that a man wielding what appeared to be a bloody chain saw could not be detained. But he added: “Our people don’t have a crime lab up there. They can’t look at a chain saw and decide if it’s blood or rust or red paint.”

None of them exist. By abuse of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court (in Raich) has abandoned federalism and ruled (6-3) that sick or dying people can get arrested by the feds for smoking weed to alleviate pain even if state law allows it.

Good summary here.

Also, you know something is screwy when Howard Dean starts making sense.

And Mike is back and, man, is he angry. On the basis of the judgment:

A farmer, named Wickard, grew wheat on his own farm for his own use. This was in excess of what the federal government allowed him to grow, so they arrested him.

Think about that for a minute.

Wickard went to court, and lost. Why? The commerce clause, of course. Since the feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce, they therefore have the power to regulate how much a wheat a farmer grows for his own use. Incredibly, this was based on the logic that any wheat he grows for himself is wheat that he would have otherwise purchased! That means that his personal garden falls under the commerce clause, and the federal government can, and did, tell him exactly how much he could plant, and arrested him when he failed to comply.

And dissenting Justice Thomas writes:

If the majority [of the Supreme Court] is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States.

and

One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States.

Xrlq on Thomas:

Justice Thomas did not disappoint (except, of course, in the sense that he did disappoint the allegedly non-racist moonbats who expect him to vote reflexively with Justice Scalia every time) . . .

Radley Balko on Thomas:

He’s easily the most principled and consistent defender of federalism on the court.

In the last few years, the supreme court has quashed free speech; federalism; right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; and states’ rights. I expect that property rights will be next.

Fuckers.

One of the plaintiffs has said she will defy the ruling:

“I’m going to have to be prepared to be arrested,” said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.

Eric has more on Frisco’s proposed ban on politically incorrect dogs:

I want to address Newsom’s apparent contention that people who own pit bulls don’t “think what’s in their best interests.” I’ve had these dogs since the mid 1970s, and while I’ve perhaps not written enough posts about this issue, it’s because it makes me so sick that the government would try to take my dogs away because someone doesn’t approve of them that I fear I’d be overly redundant and emotional.

I blog about pit bulls and other politically incorrect dogs all the time. Since I have no problem being overly redundant and emotional, let me state that you will get my dog from my cold dead hands.

Kind of funny how the dog ban parallels gun bans, namely the assault weapons ban. We don’t want to ban dogs but want to ban scary looking dogs based on arbitrary criteria (i.e., appearance) since there is no easy way to genetically identify what breed of dog a specific dog is as they share approximately 99% of their genes with other dogs. And pit bull is not actually a breed but rather a type of dog. Don’t believe me? Go here and play a game of find the pit bull.

Eric also links to what he calls Joe Gandelman’s thoughtful post on the issue, which notes:

But common sense would screech out this: if you have a kid, don’t buy a pit bull.

Actually, common sense would dictate that you don’t leave a kid and a dog unattended. Ever. Regardless of dog breed. And when baby is interacting with the dog, it helps to have a camera handy to capture the savage mauling the child will receive:

Some other tales of pit bull viciousness here and here.

The problem with pit bulls is that people who shouldn’t own any dog and are going for the macho, tough look get pit bulls. They then encourage the animals to be aggressive. Or they’re abusive to the animals. The other problem is that they are the preferred breed of drug dealers and people who engage in the horrendous practice of dog fighting. And, of course, people predisposed to keep dogs that are mean are typically not predisposed to obeying the law.

Pit bulls have better than average temperament and, as Xrlq noted, are not represented fairly in the media. In fact, the media even reports when someone is attacked by a dog and the dog is not a pit bull, that the dog is not a pit bull as if to convey surprise.

The similarity between guns and dogs is striking. We must ban mean looking dogs/guns. Dogs/guns are represented with either ignorance or willful deceit in the media as long as the story can scare someone. Laws passed regarding both are reactionary, ineffective, and not well thought out.

Breed specific legislation is ineffective. We need people control, not dog control.

Fortunately for all involved, California code prohibits breed specific legislation. However, the mayor of San Fran, as Xrlq points out, is not above breaking the law.

Update: Hell has frozen over as Tom agrees with Xrlq.

It seems the UN is alarmed that the equipment that was not used to not make weapons of mass destruction has been removed:

U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

Sure, they had equipment to produce WMDs but that means there were no WMDs, right? And there were no WMD related program activities? And they were in compliance with various UN resolutions regarding WMDs and their production, right? I mean, I’m just saying, you know.

Another repost from my guest blogging stint at No Silence Here:

I’m the sort that is distrustful of the government. And for good reason. Here’s a few of those reasons:

A librarian in Washington details her interaction with the FBI thought police:

On June 8, 2004, an FBI agent stopped at the Deming branch of the Whatcom County Library System in northwest Washington and requested a list of the people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. We said no.

[snip]

We told the FBI that it would have to follow legal channels before our board of trustees would address releasing the names of the borrowers.

[snip]

Undeterred, the FBI served a subpoena on the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November 2001.

So, the FBI is monitoring reading habits. After all, if you (like the FBI) take an interest in America’s number one enemy, obviously you’re suspect in something.

Also, gunner at No Quarters details how his mail is getting inspected.

And AlphaPatriot reports that:

A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.

Clearly, the encryption that I use on my home WiFi network makes me intentionally criminal.

I prefer Unclestan, which is not to be confused with Uncle Stan. And I am not an Osmon nor a wingnut.

A cop in South Carolina pulled over a stolen car. He knew it was stolen because it was his car.

I posted this while guest blogging at No Silence Here but want a copy in my database. So, here’s the reprint:

Cheating to win

This story, which went largely unreported in local media but was popular among Tennessee bloggers, is one from the vault. There was a bill making its way through Tennessee that would allow citizens with handgun carry permits to carry their handguns into establishments that serve alcohol so long as they weren’t drinking. The merits of the bill aside, it actually had support in the legislature. But House Speaker Naifeh broke the rules of the house to avoid a floor vote.

Rep. Campfield, Tennessee’s first blogging legislator, broke the story. And it spread like wildfire around Tennessee blogs. Bill Hobbs covered it extensively as did Blake and I.

The press virtually ignored Naifeh subverting house rules to get what he wanted. Bill Hobbs correctly noted that Tom Humphrey of the KNS never once mentioned Naifeh’s deliberate failure to follow the rules in his coverage of the event.

Additionally, Espo provided extensive coverage of the biased non-reporting of the incident:

The Speaker said this during the House session on 28APR. You can watch it here. He said multiple times that this was his opinion on what happened, and Rep. Todd rose to counter the Speaker’s statement. The article makes no reference to this as an opinion and certainly doesn’t recognize Rep. Todd’s statement. Rep. Cochran of Elizabethton’s account of what actually happened in the subcommittee is here.

and

What isn’t proper is allowing a committee to kill a bill like HB2225 which has 63 sponsors (enough to pass on the House floor) because the House Democrats are opposed to it.

Unless you were reading blogs, you probably had no idea this was going on. The local press either ignored it or supported Naifeh while failing to deliver the entire story.

Law and sausage. Media and sausage.

Yesterday, Rep. Campfield reports that the bill is back but not all of its 63 co-sponsors supported it in a house vote:

It came to a vote. 66 votes were needed to bring it to the house floor, but only 54 voted yes. 36 members voted no, and 8 didn’t vote. Curious is that there were 63 sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill. It now appears obvious that some members signed on as co-sponsors banking on the standard operating procedure that it would be killed in committee and never come to a vote.

It looks like those “sponsors” were put to the test. When the rubber actually meets the pavement, how did they vote?

Xrlq has the skinny on some media bias against dogs. Well, certain dogs that are politically incorrect. He also has some good advice. Most importantly:

Never trust your dog around a child, unattended

Yup.