Category Archives: Law

IRS alleged to discriminate against Obama critics in awarding non-profit tax status in “Z Street” case

Did IRS illegally specially scrutinize “Israel-related organizations”?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/28/did-irs-illegally-specially-scrutinize-israel-related-organizations/

……” The complaint alleges that during [a telephone] conversation, [IRS] Agent [Diane] Gentry told Z Street’s counsel that she had two major concerns about approving the application …: first,that the organization engaged in “advocacy” activities that are not permitted under Section 501(c)(3); and second, that the IRS had special concerns about applications from organizations whose activities relate to Israel, and whose positions with respect to Israel contradict the current policies of the U.S. Government. According to the complaint, Agent Gentry told Z Street’s counsel that the IRS carefully scrutinizes all Section 501(c)(3) applications that are connected with Israel, and that “these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.” …

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Free Speech, Israel, Law, Politics

How Microsoft handed the #NSA access to encrypted messages #tcot #tlot #ocra

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

……” Blanket orders from the secret surveillance court allow these communications to be collected without an individual warrant if the NSA operative has a 51% belief that the target is not a US citizen and is not on US soil at the time. Targeting US citizens does require an individual warrant, but the NSA is able to collect Americans’ communications without a warrant if the target is a foreign national located
overseas. Since Prism’s existence became public, Microsoft & the other companies listed on the NSA documents as providers have denied all knowledge of the program & insisted that the intelligence agencies do not have back doors into their systems. Microsoft’s latest marketing campaign, launched in April emphasizes its commitment to privacy with the slogan: “Your privacy is our priority.” Similarly, Skype’s privacy policy states: “Skype is committed to respecting your privacy & the confidentiality of your personal data, traffic data & communications content.” But internal NSA newsletters, marked top secret, suggest the co-operation between the intelligence community & the companies is deep and ongoing. The latest documents come from the NSA’s Special Source Operations (SSO) division, described by Snowden as the “crown jewel” of the agency. It is responsible for all programs aimed at US communications systems through corporate partnerships such as Prism. The files show that the NSA became concerned about the interception of encrypted chats on Microsoft’s Outlook.com portal from the moment the company began testing the service in July last year. Within five months, the documents explain, Microsoft and the FBI had come up with a solution that allowed the NSA to circumvent encryption on Outlook.com chats A newsletter entry dated 26 December 2012 states: “MS [Microsoft], working with the FBI, developed a
surveillance capability to deal” with the issue. “These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012.” Two months later, in February this year, Microsoft officially launched the Outlook.com portal. Another newsletter entry stated that NSA already had pre-encryption access to Outlook email. “For Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, & Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption.” Microsoft’s co-operation was not limited to Outlook.com. An entry dated 8 April 2013 describes how the company worked “for many months” with the FBI – which acts as the liaison between the intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley on Prism – to allow Prism access without separate authorization to its cloud storage service SkyDrive. The document describes how this access “means that analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO for this – a process step that many analysts may not have known about”. The NSA explained that “this new capability will result in a much more complete and timely collection response”. It continued: “This success is the result of the FBI working for many months with Microsoft to get this tasking & collection solution established.” A separate entry identified another area for collaboration. “The FBI Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) team is working with Microsoft to understand an additional feature in Outlook.com which allows users to create email aliases, which may affect our tasking processes.” The NSA has devoted substantial efforts in the last two years to work with Microsoft to ensure increased access to Skype, which has an estimated 663 million global users. One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. “The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete ‘picture’,” it says. Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011. According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general. The NSA was able to start tasking Skype communications the following day, and collection began on 6 February. “Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete,” the document stated, praising the co-operation between NSA teams and the FBI. “Collaborative teamwork was the key to the successful addition of another provider to the Prism system.” ACLU technology expert Chris Soghoian said the revelations would surprise many Skype users. “In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps,” he said.”It’s hard to square Microsoft’s secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google.” The information the NSA collects from Prism is routinely shared with both the FBI and CIA. A 3 August 2012 newsletter describes how the NSA has recently expanded sharing with the other two agencies. The NSA, the entry reveals, has even automated the sharing of aspects of Prism, using software that “enables our partners to see which selectors [search terms] the National Security Agency has tasked to Prism”. The document continues: “The FBI and CIA then can request a copy of Prism collection of any selector…” As a result, the author notes: “these two activities underscore the point that Prism is a team sport!”…..

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Human rights, Law, Politics, Privacy, US National Security

ALERT! Lautenberg now seeking to restrict Handloading & reloading #tcot #tlot #twisters

Senator Targets Gun Powders with Explosives ‘Background Check’ Law http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/08/New-Explosives-License-Impinges-on-Gun-Owners-that-Load-Own-Ammo ……. ”

An analysis of the text reveals profound changes to current law. Lautenberg’s changes in the explosives law would seriously hamper history reenactor hobbyists, black powder hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, and anyone that loads their own ammo with modern smokeless gun powder or the older style black powder. One change would require those that want to buy and store either smokeless powder or black powder to get a new license–at a rate of $50 every three years–to allow them to do so. The bill also says that they will only be allowed to have “limited” supplies but does not seem to say what amount would exceed those limits. Companies making pre-made ammunition are not required to obtain these licenses for now. The bill also redefines what “manufacturer” of explosives means. The original laws defines “manufacturer” as someone who is making explosives (cartridges, etc.) for sale. That commercial aspect of the law is struck out in the new bill. If Lautenberg’s anti- explosives bill passes, anyone that hand loads cartridges for their own use or anyone that uses black powder firearms for hunting, sporting, or hobby use will now be classified as “manufacturers.

” ….. * Tactical Gear and Military Clothing News *: S.792 Explosive Materials Background Check Act Revealed http://blog.predatorbdu.com/2013/05/s792-explosive-materials-background.html?m=1 RRD: I have no doubt that those unfamiliar with firearms will be puzzled as to why anyone would wish to Handload or Reload. See below: Handloading – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading …..”

Economy, increased accuracy, performance, commercial ammunition shortages, and hobby interests are all common motivations for handloading both cartridges and shotshells. Reloading fired cartridge cases can save the shooter money, or provides the shooter with more, and higher quality, ammunition within a given budget. Reloading may not be cost effective for occasional shooters, as it takes time to recoup the cost of the required equipment, but those who shoot on a regular basis will see benefit as the brass cartridge case or shotgun shell hull (the most expensive components) can be reused many times (with proper maintenance). Besides economy, the ability to customize the performance of ammunition is a common goal. Hunters may desire cartridges with specialized bullets or specific performance as regards bullet and velocity . Target shooters seek the best achievable accuracy, as well as the best shot-to-shot consistency. Shotgunning enthusiasts can make specialty rounds not available in commercial inventories at any price. Many handloaders also customize their cartridges and shells to their specific firearms, usually in pursuit of accuracy: they can assemble precision ammunition using cartridge cases that have been fire formed in the chamber of a specific firearm. [1][2] Handloaders also have the flexibility to make reduced-power rounds for hunting rifles, such as handloading to an equivalent of a milder- recoiling round to encourage recoil-averse hunters to become proficient with a full-power one. Rather than purchasing a special purpose rifle, which many novice hunters would outgrow within a few hunting seasons, a single rifle can be used with special handloaded rounds until such time more powerful rounds are desired & become appropriate. This use of specialized handloading techniques often provides significant cost savings, especially when a hunter in a family already has a full-power rifle and a new hunter in the family wishes to learn the sport. This technique also enables hunters to use the same rifle and caliber to hunt a wider variety of game. Collectors of obsolete firearms who want to shoot those guns often must handload because appropriate cartridges or shotshells are no longer commercially produced. Handloaders can also create cartridges for which no commercial equivalent exists – wildcat cartridges . [3] As with any hobby, the pure enjoyment of the reloading process may be the most important benefit. Recurring shortages of commercial ammunition are also reasons to reload cartridges and shotshells. When commercial supplies dry up, and store-bought ammunition is not available at any price, having the ability to reload one’s own cartridges and shotshells economically provides an ability to continue shooting despite shortages. There are three aspects to ballistics : internal ballistics , external ballistics , and terminal ballistics . Internal ballistics refers to things that happen inside the firearm during and after firing but before the bullet leaves the muzzle. The handloading process can realize increased accuracy and precision through improved consistency of manufacture, by selecting the optimal bullet weight and design, and tailoring bullet velocity to the purpose. Each cartridge reloaded can have each component carefully matched to the rest of the cartridges in the batch. Brass cases can be matched by volume, weight, & concentricity, bullets by weight and design, powder charges by weight, type, case filling (amount of total usable case capacity filled by charge), and packing scheme (characteristics of granule packing). In addition to these critical items, the equipment used to assemble the cartridge also has an effect on its uniformity/consistency and optimal shape/size; dies used to size the cartridges can be matched to the chamber of a given gun. Modern handloading equipment enables a firearm owner to tailor fresh ammunition to a specific firearm, and to precisely measured tolerances far improving the comparatively wide tolerances within which commercial ammunition manufacturers must operate. Where the most extreme accuracy is demanded, such as in rifle benchrest shooting , handloading is a fundamental prerequisite for success. [1] Insurgency and resistance groups, as well as military partisans, might also have need to handload cartridges and shotshells due to unavailability or scarcity of factory-produced commercial ammunition within particular jurisdictions, or under certain circumstances. Low quality of available factory ammunition, even without scarcity of ammunition, can also lead to the need for widespread fabrication of handloaded ammunition.

“….. Introduction to Handloading http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CFPage?storeId=10151&catalogId=10051&langId=-1&&mode=article&objectID=32096&catID=&subcatID=0 Handloading | Guns Magazine http://gunsmagazine.com/category/handloading/

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Politics, Second Amendment

Update, Manchin-Toomey isn’t as bad as we feared,it’s much much worse #2ndamendment #tcot #tlot #gunrights

The most through critique of the bill is presented by GAO’s legal counsel below. I thought to excerpt from it but–if the author is even remotely correct there are so many problems that it’s difficult to know where to begin. Problems – Gun Owners of America http://gunowners.org/congress04082013.htm Also see: Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Gun Control Legislation: Bad Law on Federal Gun Registry http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/11/schumer-toomey-manchin-gun-control-legislation-bad-law-on-federal-gun-registry/ ……..”

The STM bill fuzzes up the law prohibiting a federal gun registry. First, the legislation says that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to allow establishment of a federal firearms registry. In addition, it says that the Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize records of firearms acquisition and disposition maintained by licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers, and by buyers and sellers at gun shows (and makes it a crime for him to do so). But then, the STM bill takes those protections away by using the all-powerful word “notwithstanding”—”notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.” The courts may construe the “notwithstanding” to allow Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations that could begin to create a federal registry of firearms, because the law says he can implement the subsection without regard to the protections against a registry elsewhere in the legislation. The courts view the word “notwithstanding” as very powerful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1989 in Crowley Caribbean Transport v. U.S. in reference to the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter” that “a clearer statement of intent is difficult to imagine” to push aside other laws. The same court indicated in 1991 in Liberty Maritime Corporation v. U.S. that a grant of authority to a department head to be exercised “notwithstanding” any other law generally grants the broadest possible discretion to the department head. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1992 in Conoco, Inc. v. Skinner took a somewhat different approach, in which the judges themselves divine the congressional intent whether to let the word “notwithstanding” in a law override other conflicting provisions of the same law.

“……

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Politics, Second Amendment

Obama’s grotesque,hypocritical view of ”rights” & civil liberties

Obama Promotes Constitutional Fallacies In Gun Control Push http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/17/obama-promotes-constitutional-fallacies-in-gun-control-push/ RRD: Openmarket quotes the Washington Post before rebutting Obama’s argument,the whole piece is worth reading but I wish to add my own comments. ….”

In making his case Wednesday for tighter controls on gun ownership, President Obama turned to the document most often cited by firearms advocates in defense of gun rights — the Constitution. By doing so, Obama sought to turn a perceived political weakness — his image as an aloof intellectual — into a strength, and, at the same time, to turn a perceived strength of gun advocates — the constitutional right to bear arms — into a potential weakness. Citing a series of mass shootings, Obama listed several amendments, as well as the defining phrase of the Declaration of Independence, to argue that the right to bear arms should not compromise other rights. “We have the right to worship freely and safely — that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin,” Obama said at a midday event. “The right to assemble peacefully — that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.” Obama added that “that most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were “denied to college students at Virginia Techand high school students at Columbine and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate.” “All the families who never imagined they’d lose a loved one to a bullet, those rights are at stake,” he said. “We’re responsible.

” …… ……”

The Court noted in its Morrison decision that Constitutional rights only apply against the government, not other private individuals, so the federal government cannot rely on constitutional rights as a basis for regulating private — as opposed to governmental — conduct. It has to rely on a federal power specifically listed in the Constitution instead.

”……. RRD: According to at least two of his teachers Obama is a very bright man, but one unwilling to apply himself to the task of actually…well …learning. ( fn1 ) Increasingly though, I wonder if even that is true,as he keeps making arguments that aren’t particularly clever,even for a ignorant demagogue. For example it does not take a genius to note that if one were to apply this ”right to life” standard mentioned above ,in general ( rather than simply to the Second Amendment) that it would disembowel the Fourth & Fifth Amendments (& incidentally it is the same argument Bush used to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policies) . Of course Obama doesn’t apply it to those other Amendments because to do so would incur the wrath of his base. Further evidence of Obama’s hypocrisy on this issue may be seen in the fact that the right to life standard does not apply to keeping our soldiers in Afghanistan to prevent a terrorist attack. ”

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger

”….. Obama overrode Generals on Afghanistan so that America could “absorb” a terrorist attack. #tcot #gwot #jcot – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/obama-overrode-generals-on-afghanistan-so-tha RRD: So the ”right to life” standard does not apply to the victims of Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks ( unless those attacks are carried out with guns of course,then they would provide us with a crisis too good to let waste). Given that Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan thinks that terrorism must not be allowed to ”define” or ”distort” our foreign policy this is hardly surprising. (fn2) Nor did this standard apply to the ”workplace violence” of Ft.Hood (fn3),which as horrific as it was must not be allowed to compromise our ”diversity ” (fn4) Nor of course did it apply to the victims of Fast And Furious.(fn5) Nor did it apply to Jane Sturm’s mother since she should take a pill & die (fn6). Nor did it apply to those who need Avastin (fn7). It applies only to disarming the innocent,(which of course would also cause deaths,but as Obama cares only about power, that does not concern him) Again I remain convinced that we are losing due to a inability to get our message out,not due to the invincibility of our enemies. Footnotes: See Mendell Obama from Promise to Power pages 46 & 60 Obama – David Mendell – Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=rtBru4Nrpj8C&lpg=PP1&dq=david%20mendell&pg=PA61#v=snippet&q=teacher%20apply&f=false fn2 White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/6/white-house-war-terrorism-over/print/ fn3 Video: Fort Hood massacre not considered a terrorist attack? « Hot Air http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/19/video-fort-hood-massacre-not-considered-a-terrorist-attack/ fn4 General Casey: diversity shouldn’t be casualty of Fort Hood | Tales from the Trail http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/

Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse

” fn5. Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up: Katie Pavlich: 9781596983212: Amazon.com: Books http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Furious-Bloodiest-Shameless-Cover-Up/dp/1596983213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358184634&sr=8-1&keywords=katie+pavlich Katie Pavlich – Obama Smirks, Laughs Off Fast and Furious During Debate http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/16/obama_smirks_laughs_off_fast_and_furious_during_debate fn6 Obama:Take a pill instead of pacemaker /RE: Obama’s ”letters praising #Obamacare” #tcot #teaparty #tlot – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/obamatake-a-pill-instead-of-pacemaker-re-obam fn7. FDA’s #Avastin decision is a #breastcancer patient’s worst nightmare Washington Examiner #obamacare #repealit #tcot #tlot – fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/fdas-avastin-decision-is-a-breastcancer-patie

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Politics, Privacy, Second Amendment, US National Security

Fmr. D.C. prosecutor D.C. gun ban did not work,increased crime,persecuted innocent #secondamendment #tcot #tlot

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: A Gun Ban That Misfired – WSJ.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=WSJ_MostPopular_US ….”

As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun -control efforts. I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime. The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law -enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self -defense. Some in Washington who owned firearms before the ban were allowed to keep them as long as the weapons were disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. According to the law, trigger locks could not be removed for self -defense even if the owner was being robbed at gunpoint. The only way anyone could legally possess a firearm in the District without a trigger lock was to obtain written permission from the D.C. police. The granting of such permission was rare. The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law -abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454. The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department also waged a war on firearms by creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. The campaign meant that officers were obliged to spend time searching otherwise law -abiding citizens. That same year, the department launched a crackdown called Operation Cease Fire to rid the District of illegal firearms. But after four months, officers had confiscated only 282 guns out of the many thousands in the city. Civil liberties were endangered. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days, and efforts were made to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. In 1997, Police Chief Charles Ramsey disbanded the unit so that he could assign more uniformed officers to patrol the streets instead, but the police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade—with little effect. In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city’s gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that “the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.”Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.

”…. Mr. Shapiro was a criminal prosecutor for the District of Columbia

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Politics, Second Amendment

Biden wants inoperable “smart guns”,Obama wants a “assault weapons” ban #tcot #secondamendment #tlot

Biden Wants New Technology for Guns http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Biden-technology-guns-owners/2013/01/11/id/471059?s=al&promo_code=11EBD-1 …..” Capping three days of meetings on ways to stem gun violence in light of the Connecticut shootings last month, Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday he was interested in technology that would keep a gun from being fired by anyone other than the person who bought it. And it became clear that President Barack Obama plans to push for a controversial ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to stem gun violence in his State of the Union address next month. “Had the young man not had access to his mother’s arsenal, he may or may not have been able to get a gun,” Biden said on Friday, speaking of Newtown gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, who used weapons purchased by his mother to carry out the attack on an elementary school in the Connecticut town. Lanza killed his mother — Nancy, a gun enthusiast — at their home on Dec. 14 before heading to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he fatally shot 20 children and six adults. “We know that there is no silver bullet, no seat belt,” Biden said before heading into a Friday meeting with representatives of the video game industry, the Associated Press reports. Technology for so-called “smart guns” is being developed, although, so far there has been little demand for it. Various techniques such as fingerprint recognition or the wearing of a magnetic ring would prevent anyone other than a weapon’s registered owner from firing”…. RRD: I am not sure where to begin. There is ,so far as I know, only one locking device of this type that works without interfering with a person’s ability to defend themselves : The Magna-Trigger; & it only works with Smith & Wesson revolvers & one Ruger revolver; the Security model. The person wears a magnetic ring on their trigger finger & the gun (once modified) will not fire without the ring. ( One can get two rings one for each finger,that way you can draw with either hand) . It is recommended by Massad Ayoob,(police officer & firearms expert) for those who use those models of handguns. But it does not “ID” the person,& could be defeated by removing the ring. More to the point it does not work for rifles ( of any kind) or semi-automatic pistols so it would not have stopped the massacre,anymore than “universal background checks” would have ( as the boy murdered his mother & stole her guns). ( Indeed few of the proposals being put forward would have stopped this particular massacre,& none would have prevented terrorists or others from carrying out such a massacre with real ,class three AK-47s from Afghanistan much as they did in Mumbai . ) The mother herself could have stopped the boy from accessing the guns by simply using any number of readily available gun safes,but if she did ,then she presumably trusted that her son would not murder her & gave him the code. As for “smart guns” ,”that cannot be fired by anyone other than the person who bought it or registered it” ,there is a reason that police officers have refused to have them issued to them (at least as of 2000) ,they don’t work (fn1) . Specifically while they seem to be very effective at preventing a criminal from using the stolen weapon ( at least until the criminals find a way to circumvent them,as they did the “unforgeable ID card” fn2 ) ,a unfortunate side effect is that they render the gun unuseable by the owner as well,which would no doubt be fine with Feinstein as long as her security guards were exempt,but might be distressing if you must rely upon the gun to save your life. They rely upon bio-metrics & as anyone can tell you bio-metrics are notoriously iffy,some like Google’s Face recognition can be easily defeated with a photograph,others require multliple attempts to place your finger in exactly the right position . But there is a further problem,even if the technology could be perfected ,what Biden is proposing is that the guns be tied to the user;that means universal registration & universal registration makes confiscation possible. Footnotes : fn1. http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment041900a.html Smart Cops Saying ‘No’ 4/19/2000 By Dave Kopel …”The gun company formerly known as Smith & Wesson (now called “Clinton & Wesson” by Second Amendment advocates) has agreed that in a few years, it will produce only guns which have an internal computer chip, to prevent anyone except the owner from using the gun. Such “smart” guns might be fine for target shooting, but few people who want a gun for protection would want to risk their lives on a bet that the computer chip will always work perfectly in an emergency. The best proof of the dangers of computer guns, in an emergency situation, is that police refuse to buy them. Notably, the agreement between Smith & Wesson and the Clinton administration gives S&W an exemption for sales to police and the military. Likewise, mandatory computer gun proposals which were defeated in 1999 in New Jersey and this March in Maryland, also contained police exemptions. That is because the bills’ sponsors recognized that if the bills forced the police to buy computer guns, the state capitols would be deluged with police officers testifying against the mandate. Were computer guns actually reliable, no group could benefit more than police officers; one-seventh of all police shooting deaths are perpetrated with a gun that was snatched from a police officer. And police guns are uniquely vulnerable to being taken away, since they are normally worn on an exposed belt holster. (As opposed to defensive handguns carried by ordinary citizens, which by law are usually required to be carried concealed.) But when Sandia Labs in New Mexico evaluated every known form of personalized gun technology for possible police adoption, no technology was graded better than a “B” — because of reliability problems. Simply put, the police will not put up with a gun that is 99% reliable. And since civilians, like law enforcement officers, have the legal right to use deadly force to protect themselves or others from serious violent felonies, when no lesser force will suffice, civilians are just as entitled to be able to purchase 100% reliable firearms.”…. fn2. New ID cards are supposed to be ‘unforgeable’ – but it took our expert 12 minutes to clone one, and programme it with false … http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204641/New-ID-cards-supposed-unforgeable–took-expert-12-minutes-clone-programme-false-data.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Politics, Second Amendment

Obama seeks repeat of Clinton’s failed deal with S&W,except with Wal-Mart

White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings – The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html ….”

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

“…. RRD : For those who are new to this, Clinton tried a similiar scheme with S & W ( Smith & Wesson) ,the “thinking” was that they would pit “good” ,”responsible” gun manufacturers like S & W against “bad” gun manufacturers,then the “bad” ones would be sued,& the “good” ones would cut deals with the Federal government. What could possibly go wrong? What went wrong was that gun owners boycotted S & W into bankruptcy ;literal bankruptcy. No other gun manufacter made a deal with the federal government after that. Let those who think that pragmatism is practical take note of that,(& I include the GOP in that group). Now Obama & co. think that they can do the same thing with Wal-Mart. If the managers of Wal-Mart are ,in fact ,considering this,then what Wal-Mart ‘s managers should ask themselves is this: why would people patronize a business that helps to violate their rights? Incidentally this is yet another example of why gun owners should spread their business around to a number of local shops rather then concentrate their purchases at one major national chain: if your local gun shop goes under because Wal-Mart undercut them in price,you will be at the mercy of Wal-Mart’s corporate decisions. We “hang together” or we will be seperately hanged.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Objectivism, Politics, Second Amendment

NRO’s Kevin Williamson The Second Amendment was created precisely to protect Military Style weapons #tcot #tlot #teaparty (( tags: Second Amendment,Sandy Hook,Newport))

Regulating the Militia – Kevin D. Williamson – National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson#

……” My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case. Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing,“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity. There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”….

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Politics, Second Amendment

Note: Crovitz: “Would be Internet

Crovitz: “Would be Internet regulators (the UN’s ITU) need deleting” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578167242735088684.html …”

In a referendum among the world’s two billion Internet users, how many would vote to transfer control of the Internet to the United Nations? Perhaps 100,000, an estimate based on the number of top officials ruling the most authoritarian countries, whose power is threatened by the open Web. Under the one country, one vote rule of the U.N., these 100,000 people trump the rest of the two billion. It only takes a majority of the 193 countries in the U.N. to hijack the Internet. The International Telecommunications Union is hosting a conference in Dubai, where many countries are eager to extend the agency’s role beyond telecommunications to regulate the Internet. The two -week conference is half over, with meddlesome proposals from China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes dominating the discussion. A U.S. -Canadian proposal would have limited topics to telecommunications, excluding the Internet. Top U.S. negotiator Terry Kramer said in a call with the media last week that the State Department believes that “fundamentally, the conference should not be dealing with the Internet” and that the U.S. team was working “day and night” to find allies. But State didn’t respond to my follow-up question asking for an estimate of how many countries have pledged to keep hands off the Internet. This is likely a low percentage of the 193. Instead, authoritarian governments want to legitimize government censorship, tax Internet traffic that crosses national boundaries and mandate that ITU bureaucrats replace the nongovernmental engineering groups now smoothly running the Internet.

”….

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Free Speech, Human rights, Law, Politics, Privacy