J. Kb

He hath spoketh

Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question during opening arguments in Voisine v United States.  This is the first question he has asked in court in over 10 years.

Voisine v United States is a case currently before the Supreme Court which ponders if a misdemeanor conviction of  “reckless” domestic violence is a prohibitive qualification under the Lautenberg Amendment.  Vosisine slapped his girlfriend while drunk, lost his right to own a gun, and then got arrested for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.  The argument for his side is, since he was drunk he lacked the mens rea to commit actual domestic violence and so his conviction should not have made him a prohibited person and he should not have lost his gun rights.

The bigger question is, will this case gut the Lautenberg Amendment?

Justice Thomas broke his silence to ask a very simple but deeply meaningful question: “Can you give me an area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?

In the words of the great detective: “ruh-roh!”

The anti-gun left is already crapping its pants over this.  The Brady Campaign released a statement No one convicted of domestic violence should have access to a gun – ever.”

Now we can all agree that Stephen Voisine is a piece of shit.  He slapped around a couple of girlfriends and shot a bad eagle.  But the classic argument for the First Amendment is “popular speech doesn’t need protecting, it’s unpopular speech that the 1A exists to protect.”  Soon we are going to find out if the Second Amendment also is there to protect “unpopular” people too.

Also… it seems that in the wake of Scalia’s passin, Justice Thomas is not the meat puppet that liberals accused him of being and he is a lot smarter than the lawyers at the Justice Department gave him credit for.

 

 

 

Texas size pile of bull

According to the Houston Chronicle, professors at the University of Houston “may want to avoid sensitive subjects or drop certain topics from their curriculum altogether” because students will be allowed to carry guns on campus after August 1st.  A slide shown at a UH campus carry debate gave professors and instructors advice on how to change their curricula to accommodate campus carry.  The argument against campus carry being “allowing guns into the classroom will limit academic freedoms and inhibit discussion of sometimes touchy subjects.”

 

Texas campus carry

 

The implication being levied, since these people are too cowardly just to come out and say it, is that students with concealed carry permits will feel triggered or challenged in classroom discussions and react by shooting the instructors or fellow students.  This is demeaning.  This is insulting.  This is factually inaccurate.   This is the academic variant of “CCW will turn every fender-bender into the shootout at the OK Corral.”  This is, and I’m being technical here, bullshit.

This is also the most insane mix of projection and a lack of self-awareness.  2015 was the year of student protests.  The protests, beginning at the University of Missouri, have spread to a dozen or more campuses across the country.  These protests have been ugly.  Students screaming bloody murder and cursing professors over an email about Halloween Costumes.  Students screaming at and threatening other students for studying during a protest.  Professors siding with the protesters assaulting students who don’t.  Students on the brink of rioting because a conservative speaker came to campus.  Not to mention a whole host of other petulant and ridiculous reasons.  Many, if not all, of these students adhere to the political philosophy of Social Justice, which is an ideology that really doesn’t jive with gun rights.

I think it is safe to say that little Ms. Special Snowflake here isn’t a fan of campus carry.  If the idea of someone holding an opinion different to her own on campus is a threat to her safety, I can’t imagine the way she would lose her mind (and maybe even bowel control) if she found out someone had a different opinion AND and gun in proximity to her.

 

Activist students protesting over the most tenuous perceived slight, going on hunger strikes, issuing demands to schools containing Stalinistic levels of arbitrary punishments and censorship, and forcing the resignation of Deans and School Presidents; no, none of that is a threat to academic discussion (if you read no other link, read this one).  But some 21 year old student, who has gone through a criminal background check (including fingerprinting), quietly sitting in class with a legally owned pistol in his waistband; that is going to end classroom intellectual pursuits.

Right…..

I’m going to go on the record here and say, as a Ph.D., and as someone who has taught college classes, including having had to fail a couple of students, the idea that campus concealed carry is death knell of academia in America.   Each and every UH faculty member who has bought into this idea is a close minded putz.

Stannum Millinery

According to The Washington Post, just hourse before his death, Justice Antonin Scalia was at a secret meeting with the Illuminati Bilderbergers Jews Rosicrucians International Order of St. Hubertus.

I know, the International Order of St. Hubertus.  This is HUGE!!!  Actually… I don’t know the International Order of St. Hubertus.  A quick check on the internet says that they are “a worldwide organization of hunters who are also wildlife conservationists and are respectful of traditional hunting ethics and practices.

Members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large cross and the motto ‘Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,’ which means ‘Honoring God by honoring His creatures,’ according to the group’s website. Some hold titles, such as Grand Master, Prior and Knight Grand Officer. The Order’s name is in honor of Hubert, the patron saint of hunters and fishermen.

They wear robes.  They have strange titles.  They speak in tongues.  They’re practically the Klan.

The group’s Grand Master is ‘His Imperial Highness Istvan von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria,’ according to the Order’s website. The next gathering for ‘Ordensbrothers’ and guests is an ‘investiture’ March 10 in Charleston, S.C.

Which Justice or Politician are they going to murder at their next event?

The society’s U.S. chapter launched in 1966 at the famous Bohemian Club in San Francisco, which is associated with the all-male Bohemian Grove — one of the most well-known secret societies in the country.

Holy hell, they’re worse than the Klan.  What is their end game?  Are they are going to take over the world?  Why?  Do they want to turn America into one giant game preserve?  What are they going to hunt?  People?  Us?

Oh.  My.  God.  The International Order of St. Hubertus is murdering it’s way through American’s elite so that they can play The Most Dangerous Game.  You know how hunters and gun owners are.  They are all psychotic killers.

Or….

Scalia died in his sleep after a meeting of just a ye olde Austrian Ducks Unlimited.

Statists gonna state

Cynthia Dill, a Maine state senator, opined in the opined in the Portland Press Herald that:

Instead of – or in addition to – ordering Apple to build a technological back door to its phones, why aren’t we ordering weapons makers to put technology in their products that can be used by law enforcement to protect us from gun violence?

Let me see if I can shorten that sentence for State Senator Dill:

If we can get our hands on the technology to violate Apple users’ 4th Amendment rights, why don’t we go all the way and develop the technology to strip people of their 2nd Amendment rights as well?

Wait, I can do better:

If we can put our left boot on your throats, we can put our right boot on your throats too.

I think that just about sums it up.  I fall squarely in the camp the believes that Apple should, in no uncertain terms, deny the FBI’s request to build in a law enforcement backdoor to the Apple encryption.  In Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court extended 4th Amendment protections to all areas that a person had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”  The opinion in Katz established a “two tier” test for what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable search.

  1. Does a person have a subjective expectation of privacy at the time of the search?
  2.  Is that subjective expectation reasonable – i.e., would society as a whole recognize that moment as being private?

The Katz example is a public phone vs. a phone booth.  If you are on a public phone and can be over heard, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  If you are in a phone booth that you can shut to door to, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy since you took steps to avoid being overhead.  Since companies, like Apple, advertise the security of their phones and data encryption systems as features, and people and companies often select which phones and carriers to use because of their data encryption and security features, it would be quite reasonable to assume that there is an expectation of privacy in a locked, encrypted phone.

This is not about hacking the San Bernardio shooter’s phone.  This is about giving the Federal Government the ability to hack everybody’s phone, and the Federal Government tells us to “trust them,” that they won’t abuse that ability.  Apple, in the past, has helped law enforcement hack individual computers/phones/etc.  A backdoor into the system for law enforcement is a means of lowering the bar of difficulty for law enforcement to access data.  Perhaps lowering the bar enough that the Fed could claim that with this technology, that all encrypted data is “in plain view.”  Call me a paranoid cynic, but somehow I get the impression that if the Fed had the ability to backdoor their way through Apple’s encryption, by next week they’d have a Bluetooth wand that they could wave over your phone and download all of info off of it with one swipe.  It’s not like the NSA Spent six years listening to people’s calls or the IRS was used to harass groups based on their political leanings or anything like that.

So, an attempt by the government to obtain technology to enhance their ability the violate the Constitution, has given State Senator Dill justification for wanting MORE technology capable of violating the Constitution.

Of course, she retreats to her corner of “it’s for the children:”

“Why is it a 6-year-old child can pick up an iPhone and be prevented from accessing its contents because of a passcode, but that same child can pick up a gun and shoot his 3-year-old brother in the face and kill him by accident?”

Her justification is a bald faced lie.  She wants the ability to render people’s legally obtained guns inoperable at a distance.  Rendering them inoperable is effectively no different can confiscation.  A gun that doesn’t work is as useless as no gun at all.  The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina established that mass gun confiscation was a 2nd Amendment violation.  So a remote deactivation of guns, whether it happens to one person or many would likewise be the same violation.

The two phrases I don’t see are “warrant” or “court order” suggesting that she feels the government should have the power to deactivate anybody’s guns at any time.

“Hey, there is a riot going on down town, let’s just shut off all the civilian guns in the city… wait, how about the county… better yet, the whole state.  Who cares if some people are defending their businesses, homes, and lives with their guns, it’s for the children.”

The demand for smart guns that the government could remotely disable is a constitutional double whammy.  If When your gun is deactivated without a warrant or court order, your 4th Amendment rights were violated, and because it was your gun that was rendered useless, it was your 2nd Amendment rights that were violated.  But considering just how much alacrity she has for violating one Amendment, i’m sure violating another simultaneously is just frosting on the cake.

I mean if you are going to advocate for totalitarian behavior, go big or go home, right?

All this OpEd proves to me is that 1) there is no limit to the restrictions some people want to place on our rights, and 2) I will never own a smart gun as long as I live.

History

My wife has gotten me into the INCREDIBLE musical, Hamilton.  It is a Broadway musical based on the life of one of our most important and underrated Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.  Even if Hip-Hop is not your thing, the music is AWESOME.

Alexander Hamilton is most famous for being our first Secretary of the Treasury.  As a Founding Father, this sort of puts him on the back seat of American history to the Founders who were presidents (Washington, Adams, and Jefferson) and those who were known for their political musings (Ben Franklin).  In fact, Hamilton is responsible for American’s economic system, which lead to America being the greatest economic powerhouse in human history.  A feat Hamilton deserves more credit for.  (Also, this is one of the few things that if I could go back in time and influence the Founders on, I’d want more Hamiltonian protections to economic liberty enshrined into the Constitution.)

One of the more interesting things about the musical is how much time it spends covering the personal life of Alexander Hamilton.  It covers in great detail Hamilton’s marriage and the friendly and antagonistic relationship he had with Aaron Burr over the course of his life.  The musical also covers that fact the Hamilton was an accomplished writer, lawyer, political philosopher, and … ladies man.  Even noting the factoid that First Lady Martha Washington named her tomcat Hamilton, due to his propensity to get around.

Hamilton’s reputation as America’s financial Founder was almost ruined because of America’s first sex scandal.  Hamilton stepped out on his wife with name Maria Reynolds.  Her husband blackmailed Hamilton to the tune of $1,000.  Hamilton was then accused of speculation on wages of Revolutionary soldiers to come up with the $1,000.  Maria Reynolds divorces her husband after the blackmail and her attorney was Aaron Burr, the future Vice President of the United States and the man who shot and killed Alexander Hamilton.

Funny thing is, this is not the first time at a Founding Father having a little fun on the side changed the direction of history.

The accusation that Thomas Jefferson had a bit of the ol’ jungle fever with one of his house slaves is not a new SJW rewriting of history.  It was levied against him in 1802, while he was in office as the second President of the United States.

Then there was Benjamin Franklin, our most lecherous Founding Father.  Ben, who was no spring chicken, let it be known in publication that he had a bit of a thing for older women.  Ben spent much of the Revolution in France, helping to fund the Colonies’ war effort with his penis.  Nope, not kidding.  Franklin had a knack for lovin’ up rich French widows and getting them to contribute money and influence to help the Colonies as pillow talk.  The reason that Jefferson replaced Franklin as our Minister to France was that Franklin managed to love some money out of some aristocratic French widows, who didn’t happen to be widows while Franking was being persuasive.

There are a lot more stories of our Founders like this.  Don’t for a second think that I am diminishing the Founders by saying this.  They were great men.  They created the first society in which men were equal under the law.  What they accomplished had never before been done, and really has never  been done since.  The words they used to create this nation made us the global superpower we are today.  But like other great men of history, they had great ambitions, and great appetites.  That’s what makes history fun.

Three cheers to our Pounding Founding Fathers.

 

Professionalism

Remember, as a civilian, you are not allowed to carry a gun in San Francisco.  The whole whole of San Francisco County has 2 people with active CCW permits residing in it.   You can’t be trusted to be responsible with your firearm.  You might accidentally discharge your gun into a buddy or something like that.  A real professional wouldn’t just leave his gun on the roof of his car and drive off, losing it.  Only law enforcement is professional enough to be trusted with guns in public.

And it’s gone

The Kingdom of Norway is done, RIP 872-2016.

The Norwegian Military is having all of its non-combat deployed personnel turn in their sidearms (original source) due to budgetary reasons.  The Aftenposten article doesn’t give a reason (according to Google translate), but it’s not hard to figure out.  Norway has an economy dominated by oil and gas, which took a hit in price, but that isn’t enough to cause such a shortfall for a military that is only 11,600 troops in size.  Norway prides itself on its Welfare State, which has been sapped to the breaking point by Refugees.  Norway, with its population of 5.2 million people took in some 30,000 refugees and put them on the government dole, and gave another $1.2 BILLION away in aid.  That’s $240 per Norwegian citizen.  If the Glock Blue Label pricing is any reflection on what the military pays for the P80, for what the Norwegian government gave in foreign aid, they could have bought 2.6 million new pistols.

Norway has disarmed its troops because it over spent on welfare and aid to the same people it now has to teach not to rape their way across Norway.  Congratulations Norway, at least you can stand as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to welfare and military spending.