The founders of our nation were afraid of abuses of power. Look at our history. Look at the Bill of Rights. I’m sure that everybody that reads these little posts has a strong view on the value of the 1st and 2nd amendment. But, if there was one additional thing that I could drill into every citizen of this country… teach to every social studies student in high school… and, hopefully, start getting everybody I know to start telling all their friends, it’s this:
As a juror, you are the last (and perhaps only) protector the innocent have against bad laws, corrupt laws, malicious prosecution and general miscarriages of justice.
In free socieities, there is a fine common law tradition referred to as Jury Nullification. Put simply, after a trial is done, you have heard the evidence, and the officers of the court have
posted by j k at 4:02 pm
In this story at Reason, an argument is made that while Obama, and Holder (the soon to be new attorney general) LOATH citizens owning guns, they aren’t going to be too quick in trying to put through new draconian anti-gun legislation (ala the “assault rifle ban”).
Why? The argument is that Democrat strategists think that Democrats lost control of the legislature back in 1994 because the assault rifle ban was so unpopular. Remembering that while the legislature is currently controlled, it is stil close to 50/50 — next election, it would be VERY easy to watch the tides tur — something the Democrats wish to avoid.
So, nothing to fear? Hardly. Fear Holder and the pressures that he can bring on the industry — but as far as new legislation, it will probably be untouched.
We shall see…
posted by j k at 2:00 pm
Recently, I was engaged in a conversation with some friends over the use of off duty law enforcement officers as private security. I found it a bit offensive. It seems to me that there is a general conflict of interest here….
If you are on duty, and 2 calls come in, one of which is from a fellow officer and one of which is not — which one are you going to respond to first?
If you are law enforcement, won’t you give preferential protection to your 2nd place of business when you are on duty?
War on guns blog just posted a story pointing to this fine group. And the whole thing made me a bit queasy….
In addition to that, WaronGuns made a really good point — if you live in an area were CCW permits are hard to obtain, doesn’t this give an unfair competitive advantage to off duty cops in the businesses of executive protection, etc? Seriously, that alone seems reason enough to have a ban on LEO’s performing off duty security work. The government is not supposed to set up circumstances where it creates such detriments to private sector businesses.
posted by j k at 7:43 pm
For those that follow such things. There was apparently a recall on current body armor issued to US Army soldiers.
Apparently the inspector general disagreed with the Army acceptance of the armor and has pulled it from use until the matter is resolved
posted by j k at 7:23 pm
For those taking the shotgun class this Saturday, I found a well timed posting on The Box o’ Truth website.
He has put up an introductory How to Fight with a Shotgun tutorial. Its not bad at all.
Your homework? Read it, see what is similar and what is different about the ADE training on Saturday.
posted by j k at 4:57 pm
Yup… Its legal as long as you are unloaded and not near an area specifically that specifically prohibits the activity (e.g., government building, school, etc).
Of course, it isnt just IN the school, but, within a certain distance of the school….
One guy has started making a make of places in California where open carry is legal.
Here’s the link.
posted by j k at 12:50 pm
For those of you that DON’T keep up with your eroding rights….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28530776/
Summary: DNA sampling of everyone charged with a felony. Sometimes its a misdemeanor, sometimes its arrested but not charged. And the DNA is absolutely kept forever, even if the person is innocent.
DNA databases are an invasion of privacy (especially for somebody that is not a convicted criminal), have a world of possibility for abuse/misuse, and, based on previous conversations, it could lead to false arrest and wrongful convictions.
But, I suppose if I have nothing to hide, why should I care? Right? And then THIS made the news…
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/01/27/metro/me-dna27
Summary: LAPD officers occasionally have to give DNA evidence during an investigation so that their samples can be separated out from the scene of a crime. LAPD officers are upset because there are no safeguards, there is a potential for abuse of the data, etc.
So, it’s an invasion of privacy for the Watchmen, but, for the little people — well, they have nothing to hide, right? No potential of abuse, right?
posted by j k at 11:14 am
Video here.
Short summary. IDF officer being attacked by a terrorist with a grenade. He runs up to the terrorist and physically uses him as a sheild against the blast.
posted by j k at 1:39 pm
Here is a nice website that has been cataloging some of the examples of excessive force used by our police in fighting the “War on Drugs”.
Drug War Victims
There is a reason why we have separate armed forces and police departments. They have different goals and should operate with different rules. Unfortunately, current police training seems geared at extinguishing the “protect and serve” mentality.
posted by j k at 12:17 pm
AnarchAngel has a nice post on how to clean an AR rifle.
posted by j k at 11:53 am