Gun Free Zone

Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.

Month: February 2023

.......

Rupp v. Bonta AWCA Part 1 of 3

Feb 27, 2023 awa 3 comments

B.L.U.F. This is the California case challenging California’s assault weapons ban. This case was first heard in federal district court. It was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case worked its way through the appeals process until 2021 where it was put on hold pending the Supreme Court hearing Duncan v. Bonta. After Bruen the Supreme court GVRed Duncan v. Bonta and the Ninth Circuit then vacated and remanded Duncan v. Bonta back to the district court as well as vacating and remanding Rupp v. Bonta to be re-adjudicated at the district level.

This is a history and break down of the case.

In 1989 California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, known as the AWCA. It defines an assault weapon in the general way, a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that is scary looking. Fill in the blanks. Of course they add on a bunch of firearms by name, just in case their description wasn’t inclusive enough.

Part of the law restricts all transfers of “assault weapons”. This means that if a rifle is registered when the person the registered owner dies there is no way for the owner to transfer the firearm to their heirs. A grandfather clause that pushes a total ban a generation or so down the road.

In 2017 California passed an amendment which made it more difficult to have a neutered AR-15. Because the original definition of an “assault weapon” included a detachable magazine and the definition of a detachable magazine was one that could be removed without a tool people developed the “bullet button.”

In short it was a replacement for the magazine release that required a small sturdy pin to be pressed into the magazine release in order to activate the mag release. It was called a bullet button as the most common “tool” used was the tip of a 5.56 round. There were rings sold that had a small stud on them that fit the bullet button hole to allow people to easily carry the tool in a useful way.

When the people analyze a law they look for what is legal and not legal. If they decide to remain legal they will follow the letter of the law. If that violates the spirit of the law, the left calls that a “loophole”.

Thus, the fact that I can sell you a firearm in the parking lot of a gun show is perfectly legal if we are both residences of the the state is called a “loophole” or “gun show loophole” by the left. The fact that I can pick up my firearm after a short period of time if the government doesn’t deny me permission is perfectly legal. According to the left, this is the “Charleston loophole”. Donald Trump paying the taxes he owes and not more is a “loophole”. Exxon paying more than required in tax withholding over the course of the year and then getting their money back is a “loophole”.

Bullet buttons allowed people to use their own property the way they wanted to use it. The left was extremely unhappy and yelled that this was illegal, it wasn’t. So the left labeled it a “loophole” and set about closing the loophole.

On 2017-04-24 Steven Rupp et all filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief from this infringement. This is nearly 10 years after the Heller decision. The plaintiffs(good guys) are being represented by Michel & Associates, P.C., the same people representing Virginia Duncan in Duncan v. Bonta.

The short of it is that they want to overturn California’s AWCA and stop California from infringing on the rights of their citizens. The plaintiffs attack the AWCA on multiple fronts including Second Amendment infringements, Due Process violations and violation of the Takings Clause.

The case was assigned to Federal District Judge Josephine L. Staton, not Judge Benitez.

The state immediately attempts to get the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause dismissed. Well, immediately when talking court proceedings pace.

The short of the defendants(bad guys) argument is that banning the transfer of certain rifles causes no economic loss to the plaintiffs. And because the plaintiffs are allowed to keep those rifles until they die nobody took them.

Now we get to the first interesting bit. The “Due Process Clause” is part of the Forth Amendment. The state does not argue that they didn’t violate due process, instead they claim California’s prohibition on assault weapons is rationally related to its objective of promoting public safety in California.

That sounds very familiar. The state arguing that they don’t have to follow the constitution because they have a laudable goal.

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.
— U.S.A. v. Rahimi – United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

It seems that at least in the Fifth Circuit, laudable policy goal[s] do not override the Constitution. Maybe the Ninth Circuit Court and the AG of California might decide the same thing at some point in the future.

This law suit seeks to vindicate the right of law-abiding Californians to possess firearms that for years have been among the most popular choices of Americans for self-defense. Not only does California’s sweeping Assault Weapon Control Act violate the Second Amendment, it results in the taking of private property by the government without just compensation. The law both eliminates the ability of Californians to pass certain firearms on to their heirs—a long-recognized property right—and, in many cases, forces current gun owners who are unable to register their firearms to forfeit them. Under the regime, property rights are diminished retroactively based on a wholly irrational classification system, in violation of due process.

The State argues that there are few limits to their regulatory authority. Perhaps most egregiously, the State contends that the state enjoys a blanket police power through which it may evade the constraints the Constitution places on the exercise of government power. Fortunately, the State’s argument has been thoroughly rejected by the Supreme Court. There are substantial limits to state authority—limits the State of California has crossed.
— Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Due Process Clause and Takings Clause Claims

Part of the plaintiffs argument for a TRO is that the law requires people to register their rifles. The form that they are required to use has required fields. One of those required fields is “firearm acquisition date”. Many people have no idea the date they aquirried anything. Unless there is a particular reason to keep those records, people don’t.

The original registration form is no longer easily located online. It is not unreasonable to assume that the original form had dire warnings about filling out the form incorrectly or “lying” on the form. Saying that you acquired a particular in 1995 when in fact you acquired in in 1996 is the sort of thing that gets you in trouble.

In addition, as a programmer, I know that many fields that ask for a date have no concept of “this is an estimate” so knowing you acquired a firearm sometime in 1995 you now have to pick a particular date within 1995. You are no testifying to the fact that you acquired a particular firearm on a particular date when you really have no idea.

The CSC[DoJ, Bureau of Firearms, Customer Support Center] has received calls from AWR[Assault Weapon Registration] applicants who asked how they should fill out the application if they did not have the exact date that they acquired the firearm they intend to register. I have directed the CSC to advise those callers that they may provide a best-estimated date for review in the required date field.
— https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Dec-of-P.-Plant.pdf
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by the Department of the Treasury, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer, and (ii) supporting the promotion or marketing of any transactions or matters addressed herein.
— CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

I wonder if the AWR form had a similar “disclosure”. The law is what it is. Petty bureaucrats do not have the power or authority to change law. While Patrick Plant might have done “the right thing” his direction to the CSC does not have the weight of law.

The defendants bring in an expert to tell the court:

Responsible gun owners keep records of their firearms purchases. This is a common sense matter of record keeping. It should be done to prove ownership in the event of theft and to document the legal purchase or acquisition of their firearms in the event of a criminal or civil dispute.

If a gun owner wants a list of their firearms records they can contact DOJ BOF Automated Firearms System (AFS) unit and get any firearms ownership information maintained by the DOJ after completing a copy of the form BOF 053, Automated Firearms System (AFS) Request for Firearms Records. This service provided by DOJ BOF is free. A true and correct copy of BOF 053 is attached as Exhibit 1.
— Declaration of Blake Graham in Support of Defendant Xavier Becerra’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Moiton for Preliminary Injunction

So the CA DOJ considers you to be irresponsible if you don’t keep records of your firearm purchases. I keep records of the firearms I own. Those records are encrypted and secured. I have the ability to provide those records if needed but I certainly don’t have the purchase dates of all of my firearms.

It is not a legal requirement for you to keep purchase records on anything. If an item is lost or stolen your insurance company is going to want to know what was taken, as will the police.

Blake Graham then goes on to state that if you don’t know, just ask him. He has records of every firearm you have purchased. Well sort of. He only has records that have been given to the CA DOJ BOF. Since not everybody registers every firearm they own with the government, this is pretty much a null statement.

In addition, at a time when the AWR as failing under its own weight, Blake expects you to have the time to wait for him to do the research on your firearms records request. I’m sure that the AWR will be happy to wait an extra 60,90 or more days while you wait for Blake to get back to you.

Here is an actual good argument from the state:

Plaintiffs’ opposition fails to show how the allegations in the First Amended Complaint state plausible claims for relief under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause. In a prior challenge to the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), the Ninth Circuit held that the AWCA does not violate the Takings Clause. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs fail to address this controlling case. Instead, they simply argue that the AWCA effects a physical taking by requiring plaintiffs to forfeit their assault weapons because they can no longer bequeath those weapons to any heirs and because certain individuals do not have the required information to register their firearms. These contentions do not help plaintiffs, who in the context of a facial challenge, must establish that the AWCA is invalid in all circumstances. Furthermore, the AWCA does not appropriate plaintiffs’ assault weapons for public use. Plaintiffs may, after registering their assault weapons, continue to possess, use, and enjoy those weapons.
— Defendant’s Reply in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Due Process Clause and Takings Clause Claims

This is an actual good argument back in 2017-12-01. It was a good argument because the opinions of the Ninth Circus Court controlled in this case.

The rest of the paragraph is pretty bogus. It doesn’t matter if the state physically takes something from you or forces you to destroy it under threat of violence, you no longer have the item. The state has removed the item from your possession, otherwise known as taking it from you.

If they had a sports car and the State suddenly decided for the safety of the public that they would no longer be allowed to use anything other than first, second, and reverse gears, that they were forbidden to use third, forth, and fifth gears, they would be very unhappy. I don’t think they would be satisfied with after registering their [sports car], continue to possess, use and enjoy those [cars]

If the law survives rationality review, then Plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, state a Due Process claim. Accordingly, the Court will determine whether the AWCA survives rationality review by determining whether the legislature had a legitimate government objective in enacting the AWCA, and whether the legislature could have believed at the time of enactment that the statute would promote that objective.
Legitimate Government Objective
The Court concludes that the legislature has articulated a legitimate government objective for the AWCA. It is beyond question that promoting public safety and reducing incidents of gun violence are legitimate government objectives, as the Ninth Circuit, like many other circuits, has found these interests not merely legitimate but substantial or compelling. See, e.g., Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2015); Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816, 827 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Silvester v. Becerra, 138 S.Ct. 945 (2018); Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 139 (4th Cir. 2017); N.Y.S. Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 261 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding it “beyond cavil” that such interests are compelling).

In enacting the AWCA, the legislature found that the firearms categorized as assault weapons have “such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that [their] function as . . . legitimate sports or recreational firearm[s] is substantially outweighed by the danger that [they] can be used to kill and injure human beings.” Cal. Penal Code section 30505(a). The AWCA’s legislative history shows that the 2016 amendments were directly motivated by the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, where the shooters used weapons with “bullet buttons” intended to circumvent prior iterations of the AWCA. California Bill Analysis, S.B. 880 Assem. at 8. These legislative findings support that the legislature had a legitimate government objective to promote public safety when enacting and amending the AWCA.

Accordingly, as a matter of law, the requirement that the legislature have a legitimate government objective is met.
— Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Dennis Martin

This is “means-end” in play. The court initially looked to see if the state had legitimate government objectives in passing the law. This is a very low bar to reach. Having reached the conclusion that the state had legitimate government objectives, the court then defers to the legislature in their findings.

However, the legislature concluded that the accuracy and ease of use afforded by these features, far from making the weapons safer, made them more dangerous is what the court uses to discount the plaintiffs assertions. The plaintiffs have presented multiple statements from multiple sources showing that the features the state contends turns a rifle into an assault weapon actually make them safer.

The court instead presumes the legislature knew what they were doing when they banned certain rifles and thus the arguments of the plaintiffs are discounted.

The court finds from this reasoning that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the law is impermissibly irrational, and the Court concludes that, as a matter of law, the AWCA survives rationality review. The Due Process claim is dismissed.

One of the things the court did in this ruling is that they looked at the concept of retroactive laws. What they determined was that the requirements of the law were not retroactive because the plaintiffs had options on what to do if they could not locate time-date of acquisition of the firearm in question.

I’m sure all of you have somebody you trust to store and care for your firearms out of state if suddenly required to divest yourselves of some previously legal item.

For the takings clause the court reasons that since the government didn’t physically take the items in question but instead passed a regulation it is not a physical taking. True, as far as it goes. The court continues with reasoning about the “regulatory” taking. This is the difference discussed above, is it a taking if you are forced to destroy or divest yourself of some object by threat of state violence?

The court uses prior rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that the AWCA didn’t constitute a taking.

The court denied the claims against the Takings Clause.

The final claim made by the plaintiffs was that this was a violation of the Second Amendment. The court the decides to use intermediate scrutiny and as seems to always be the case, finds for the government. The court’s reasoning being that only the right to self-defense is covered under the second amendment and as long as you have other means of self-defense the state is allowed to ban these means.

This was the order from the court denying the TRO and injunctions was give on 2018-05-9, just over a year after the suit was filed.

In the NY CCIA cases we were to this stage in mere months and to the Supreme Court in less than a month afterwards.

Finally, on 2019-07-22, the court granted the defendant’s(bad guys) motion to dismiss. I.e. the state won the first round.

This happened because the district court reasoned it was required to apply means-end and as such gave the state the ability to claim a legitimate public need for the law and then the court assumed the legislature knew what it was doing when it made claims of fact.

Order Granting Attorney General’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement

On 2019-08-27 the plaintiffs gave the district court notice of appeal. On 2019-08-28 they filed their appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Part II covers the case as it makes its way through the Ninth Circuit Court.

Geek speak: I attempted to make everything format a little better. I’ve updated how I do block quotes and made asides work. I’m sure there are going to be some issues with the aside on smaller displays but I hope it isn’t bad. I’ll “fix it” tomorrow if there are still issues.

.......

Won’t somebody think of the pedophiles?

Feb 26, 2023 J. Kb 2 comments

LA DA Gascon suspends prosecutor for misgendering and ‘deadnaming’ trans child molester accused of murder

Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon has suspended the attorney who prosecuted a 26-year-old trans child molester who was accused of identifying as a woman only after DNA evidence linked her to a cold case crime, according to law enforcement sources.

Shea Sanna, who had been the lead prosecutor for part of the case, is accused of misgendering and “deadnaming” the convicted child molester Hannah Tubbs, who is now accused of beating a man to death in the woods with a rock in Kern County.

Sanna has argued in the past that jailhouse phone calls show Tubbs, now 27, was attempting to use gender identity to game the justice system – an argument that sources say made others in Gascon’s office uncomfortable and led to the suspension.

Tubbs has a lengthy criminal history in California and Idaho under the former name, James Tubbs – and allegedly began identifying as female after being arrested in connection with a 2014 child molestation case in which she pleaded guilty to attacking a 10-year-old girl in a Denny’s bathroom stall.

Tubbs was the center of controversy last year when recordings of his phone conversations showed that we was gaming the system to get away with his crimes as a youth offender.

 

Now,  he’s using transgender politics to game the system even more.

For the Left, that’s not the problem.

The problem is a prosecutor using the wrong pronouns for a child molester.

I don’t think it could be any clearer.

In Blue cities, the justice system is run by the perverts for the perverts against the normal people.

 

.......

How to not understand security threats and be an asshole

Feb 26, 2023 J. Kb 3 comments

On Saturday, February 25, there was supposed to be a “day of hate.”

According to The Jerusalem Post:

News of the “Day of Hate” came following a leaked internal memo by the New York Police Department’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau. The memo warned officers that online organizers are “instructing likeminded individuals to drop banners, place stickers and flyers, or scrawl graffiti as a form of biased so-called action.”

“While there are no identified threats to New York City, out of an abundance of caution, the Department will deploy additional resources to sensitive locations, including houses of worship, throughout the weekend,” an NYPD spokesperson told The Jerusalem Post on Friday. “We urge all New Yorkers to remain vigilant.”

Yair Rosenberg, an Atlantic reporter, shared a Facebook post from New York City Councilmember James Gennaro saying that a flyer for the Day of Hate that’s been circulating on social “has been fabricated” but there will be a higher law enforcement presence near synagogues on February 25. Gennaro’s office followed up with a post on Facebook confirming that the Day of Hate is real.

“I have just received a call from CO Kevin Chan at the NYPD 107th precinct, and my office can now confirm that the memo regarding the “Day of Hate” is, in fact, real,” the post said. “It appears as though the previously released flyer was a leaked draft, and therefore, was determined to be unsubstantiated at the time. While this is an unfortunate development, know that my office remains committed to ensuring our community remains safe. Per my request, there will still be additional patrol and police presence near synagogues in the district this Saturday. As always, we ask all to remain vigilant and call 9-1-1 to report any suspicious activity and/or crime.

Police were on alert in my area.

Police in New England Increase Patrols After ‘National Day of Hate’ Social Media Posts

Police departments across New England have issued alerts and stepped up their presence this weekend after social media posts referenced a supposed “National Day of Hate” against Jewish groups.

Brookline police said the situation started with an anti-Semitic group based in Iowa, which reached out to its supporters calling for them to “shock the masses with banners, fliers, & graffiti.” The department has plans to increase patrols in areas of religious institutions, especially temples and synagogues.

Authorities say there is no immediate threat of violence to the community and that they are adding the patrols out of an abundance of caution. In the meantime though, police are asking people to report anything suspicious.

Fortunately, nothing happened.

Now let us consider the totality of the situation.

Antisemitic violence is at an all-time high in the post WWII era.

Antisemitic hate crimes are up in every major city.

In 2020, 60% of all hate crimes were against Jews.

Antisemitic hate crimes doubled in New York over the last couple of years.

So the threat to the Jewish community is real.

So what was the response to police in major cities playing this nebulous threat safe by increasing patrols around Synagogues on Saturday.

 

Given the number if violent antisemitic incidents that have happened, I don’t believe the added patrols were unwarranted.

Moreover, if there is any job the police do that is worth the cost, attempting to prevent crime by visibly patrolling an area is definitely that.

That is, ideally, what we pay police for, to try and prevent crime.

Nope, the Jews don’t deserve that.

 

I’m glad he was prescient enough to guarantee that nothing would happen.

 

Now we’ve reach the point where he is an utter asshole.

No matter the facts, the Jews are not worthy of any preventative police action.

Good to know.

But, here is the bigger problem.

We understand, from a security perspective, how those who are a threat probe and harass the system.

We see this from terrorists all the time.

Make a threat.

The system responds.

Do not carry out the threat.

The system calls it a hoax.

Repeat this process until the system stops responding to threats, assuming they are hoaxes.

This is when the attack comes.

This is why the police always respond to bomb threats.

This is why the Israelis take every threat seriously.

It was a hoax this time.  Or was it the security system being probed.

When white supremacist groups, or anyone else, makes threats like this on the internet, it’s a worthwhile use of law enforcement to increase presence to show that the system takes these threats seriously.

This asshole thinks that and resources used to protect the Jews is a waste.

 

 

 

.......

Judging History by Today

Feb 26, 2023 awa 18 comments
His companion, Mr. Shelby, had the appearance of a gentleman; and the arrangements of the house, and the general air of the housekeeping, indicated easy, and even opulent circumstances. As we before stated, the two were in the midst of an earnest conversation.

“That is the way I should arrange the matter,” said Mr. Shelby.

“I can’t make trade that way—I positively can’t, Mr. Shelby,” said the other, holding up a glass of wine between his eye and the light.

“Why, the fact is, Haley, Tom is an uncommon fellow; he is certainly worth that sum anywhere,—steady, honest, capable, manages my whole farm like a clock.”

“You mean honest, as niggers go,” said Haley, helping himself to a glass of brandy.

“No; I mean, really, Tom is a good, steady, sensible, pious fellow. He got religion at a camp-meeting, four years ago; and I believe he really did get it. I’ve trusted him, since then, with everything I have,—money, house, horses,—and let him come and go round the country; and I always found him true and square in everything.”

“Some folks don’t believe there is pious niggers Shelby,” said Haley, with a candid flourish of his hand, “but I do. I had a fellow, now, in this yer last lot I took to Orleans—‘t was as good as a meetin, now, really, to hear that critter pray; and he was quite gentle and quiet like. He fetched me a good sum, too, for I bought him cheap of a man that was ’bliged to sell out; so I realized six hundred on him. Yes, I consider religion a valeyable thing in a nigger, when it’s the genuine article, and no mistake.”
Uncle Tom’s Cabin (or Life among the Lowly) by Harriet Beecher Stowe

This text is so offensive that it can’t be read in public. Reading this text in a YouTube video or other podcast is likely to get you multiple strikes.

But this book is important to our history. This book is a propaganda work that was used to stir up Yankee feelings against slave owners and slavery. It worked.

This book helped lead to the end of slavery in these United States.

How could you talk about this book today? You can’t even read it outloud. It would be verboten in most schools. All because it used the language of the day.

“Say, Jim, I’ll fetch the water if you’ll whitewash some.”

Jim shook his head and said:

“Can’t, Mars Tom. Ole missis, she tole me I got to go an’ git dis water an’ not stop foolin’ roun’ wid anybody. She say she spec’ Mars Tom gwine to ax me to whitewash, an’ so she tole me go ’long an’ ’tend to my own business—she ’lowed she’d ’tend to de whitewashin’.”

“Oh, never you mind what she said, Jim. That’s the way she always talks. Gimme the bucket—I won’t be gone only a a minute. She won’t ever know.”

“Oh, I dasn’t, Mars Tom. Ole missis she’d take an’ tar de head off’n me. ’Deed she would.”

“She! She never licks anybody—whacks ’em over the head with her thimble—and who cares for that, I’d like to know. She talks awful, but talk don’t hurt—anyways it don’t if she don’t cry. Jim, I’ll give you a marvel. I’ll give you a white alley!”

Jim began to waver.

“White alley, Jim! And it’s a bully taw.”

“My! Dat’s a mighty gay marvel, I tell you! But Mars Tom I’s powerful ’fraid ole missis—”

“And besides, if you will I’ll show you my sore toe.”

— The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

Again, text that would be (is?) suppressed today. Mark Twain uses the N-word nine times in this one book. If that isn’t enough to get the book removed from polite company, read the nearly undecipherable words of Jim, above. I remember Jim as being a slave but that isn’t found in this work.

The left is judging this work by what is “acceptable” speech today. It hurts that great literature is so maligned.

“Goodwives,” said a hard-featured dame of fifty, “I’ll tell ye a piece of my mind. It would be greatly for the public behoof, if we women, being of mature age and church-members in good repute, should have the handling of such malefactresses as this Hester Prynne. What think ye, gossips? If the hussy stood up for judgment before us five, that are now here in a knot together, would she come off with such a sentence as the worshipful magistrates have awarded? Marry, I trow not!”

“People say,” said another, “that the Reverend Master Dimmesdale, her godly pastor, takes it very grievously to heart that such a scandal should have come upon his congregation.”

“The magistrates are God-fearing gentlemen, but merciful overmuch,—that is a truth,” added a third autumnal matron. “At the very least, they should have put the brand of a hot iron on Hester Prynne’s forehead. Madam Hester would have winced at that, I warrant me. But she,—the naughty baggage,—little[57] will she care what they put upon the bodice of her gown! Why, look you, she may cover it with a brooch, or such like heathenish adornment, and so walk the streets as brave as ever!”

“Ah, but,” interposed, more softly, a young wife, holding a child by the hand, “let her cover the mark as she will, the pang of it will be always in her heart.”

“What do we talk of marks and brands, whether on the bodice of her gown, or the flesh of her forehead?” cried another female, the ugliest as well as the most pitiless of these self-constituted judges. “This woman has brought shame upon us all, and ought to die. Is there not law for it? Truly, there is, both in the Scripture and the statute-book. Then let the magistrates, who have made it of no effect, thank themselves if their own wives and daughters go astray!”
— The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne

What was the sin of Hester that was so great that some women of the town were demanding she be branded and another felt should should be executed?

She was an unwed mother. What 20 years ago was “Brave and courageous” is today a common occurrence. To suggest that a woman be punished for the inability of society to provide her with free birth control and “health care” is unacceptable.

Aunt Sponge was terrifically fat / And tremendously flabby at that, Aunt Spiker was thin as a wire / And dry as a bone, only drier, most formidable female, and hundreds of other words and phrases were recently removed from Roald Dahl’s beloved books.

He is known for writing James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and many others. His publisher feels that it is “for the good of the children” to put their words in place of his.

I despise editors stealth editing anything. I want to know what the author said, not what you think I should be reading. If I have hit the publish button on one of my articles and I feel I must edit it, I will mark the title and mark deletions and insertions. It is the right thing to do.

I do not want to live in the world of 1984. It isn’t “big brother is watching” it is history being erased and rewritten in real time. It is having my words stripped away until the only thing left to say is “double plus ungood”

My wife is a teacher. When she read about these edits to Dahl’s book she had a fit. It just wasn’t acceptable.

But just like we now have “Coke Classic”, a pale imitation of real Coke-a-Cola, we are now going to have “classic” editions of Dahl’s works.

Many many years ago I read what I though was Call of the Wild by Jack London. It was boring. It was dry. It was written for young readers. It was abridged. Instead of reading the words of Jack London, I was being told what London said.

In doing so, the soul of the story was stripped away, leaving nothing but a hollow husk of what was once a great story.

In high school we were reading Romeo and Juliet. It was one of a number of shorter works in our text book. That text book was 8.5×11 and weighted way to much to lug around. I picked up a copy of the play at the local bookstore.

We were reading out loud in class when it came to my part. I read it from the book and there was the response. My words next.

There was something strange going on, Mrs Trout was nodding along, enjoying the reading. My classmates were looking confused. My words were not in their book. Mrs. Trout figured it out when the next door teacher came over and closed our door because her class was paying more attention to our reading than her.

I was reading the unabridged version of Shakespeare’s work, the textbook had a version suitable for high school students. In other words, all the juicy parts had been ripped out. Mrs. Trout figured it out. She didn’t notice because I was reading what she expected to hear. She was a good English teacher.

By the end of the week, everybody in class was reading from the unabridged version.

Words have meaning, we shouldn’t allow the left to redefine words. If words can be redefined at will they soon mean nothing.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
— Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

When I use a word it means what we agree it means. That is how we communicate and will continue to communicate.

.......

Taking the wrong approach on a good idea.

Feb 25, 2023 Miguel.GFZ 4 comments

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – It’s not uncommon when your car breaks down, that you get out of your car to check and see what’s happened.

However, often drivers don’t move over, because legally they don’t have to.

Now, AAA is pushing to expand Tennessee’s “Move Over Law” and increase the punishment for those who don’t follow it.

Proposed TN bill would expand ‘Move Over Law’ to protect people working on disabled vehicles (wkrn.com)

Here are the new fines.

HOUSE BILL 92
By Gillespie
HB0092
000607
– 1 –
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55,
Chapter 8, relative to traffic safety.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-132(e), is amended by deleting
the language “not less than one hundred dollars ($100)” and substituting instead the language
“not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250)”; by deleting the language “not less than five
hundred dollars ($500) nor more than”; and by deleting the language “not less than one
thousand dollars ($1,000)” and substituting instead the language “two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500)

How about a frigging educational blitz rather than income for the State? There are plenty of people that can design and execute a proper campaign for Move Over. And lots of signage all over the state’s highways to keep reminding people to act safely.

But truly educating cost time and money, something that politicians hate unless it lines their pockets. Punish you is easier.

 

.......

This Checks Out (IDPA version)

Feb 25, 2023 Miguel.GFZ 5 comments

J. Kb’s post.

I’ve seen it with my own eyes, some ego driven operator wannabe go all roid-rage because he got his ass whooped by some accountant in New Balance sneakers who trains to win matches.

This checks out – Gun Free Zone

The club I used to shoot with had some LEOs that would participate regularly. Most were locals from different PDs and there was one roving U.S. Marshal that never missed a match when he was in town and most of them were excellent shooters. One LEO was a from a Fed Law Enforcement Department who participated long enough to realize his skill had augmented immensely by shooting with us. He also belonged to the department’s Ninja Squad and lobbied pestered his fellow team members to come shoot with us one day, and they finally relented.

That day they showed up strutting in almost full gear and being a bit (a lot) obnoxious about having to deal with mere civilians. I have no idea if it was the match director’s idea of luck of the draw, but they were squadded together with one of our oldest shooters, a proud owner of a prominent belly and one of our youngest shooter who perhaps had been with us all of six months.

Fed Ninjas were creamed with the exception of our regular member.

We are talking such an embarrassing performance encompassing poor handling, misses and hitting No-Shoot targets.  And the Safety Officer went gently on them not enforcing the finest aspects of IDPA rules such as proper use of cover and order of target engagement.

I guess as much as we tried to hold it inside, it showed that we were laughing inside at how shitty they performed. We did invite them back so they could hone their skills, but we never saw them again. The strutting was gone as they returned to their vehicles.

I am fond to say that the NRA hold Police and Military Only Matches so the participants are not belittled and embarrassed by their civilian counterparts.