There's No Reason It's Just Our Policy

In Florida, a "permanent" handicapped parking permit is good for three years.  This requires your doctor to fill out the paperwork every three years to renew your "permanent" permit.

If your placard is lost or destroyed, you need the same paperwork from your doctor to get a permit that expires on the same date as the lost or destroyed one.

They cite abuse of the system by people who aren't handicapped as the reason for making the honest people jump through additional hoops.

I am getting sick of this paradigm.

I think the people who should be most affected by laws are the people breaking them and not additional burdens on the law abiding.

How's this one for size:  Unlawful use of a handicapped permit results in loss of license for 10 years and seizure of the vehicle used.  Forfeit of said vehicle if the owner used the permit illegally.  Hefty fine for the owner to recover their vehicle if they loaned it to the violator.

I want deterrence, by the gods! 

There Goes My Vacation Plan

Nepal is poised to pass legislation putting some experience requirements up before someone can tackle Mount Everest.

Apparently, the place is overrun with people who want to climb the mountain, regardless of whether they are able to make it to the top.

The crowds have kept people from making the summit who otherwise would have made it...  easily?  Handily?  I don't know the correct adverb here.

This is news that doesn't affect me a whit.

Despite the lack of crowds, I don't think I can summit Florida's highest peak.

Britton Hill is a lofty 105m above mean sea level and nearly 50 feet from the base camp (the parking lot).

Someday!  Someday... 

Found On Facebook

 

It IS Kinda Creepy

Apparently ICE agents are running the plates of protestors who are following them around.

Then, at the end of the day, the agents drive to the address the car following them is registered at.

The protestors are kinda upset by that.

While it's a bit creepy, I'm not really seeing anything illegal about it.

The worst I can come up with is wasting resources.

I'm, again, caught between wanting the liberty where the cops can't tell where I live from reading my car's tax stamp and wanting people who are actively trying to intimidate and thwart the enforcement of a reasonable law to be punished for it.

Oh, I forgot, yeah that license plate is just supposed to be proof of tax paid and it was promised that it would never be used for other purposes.

When government lies like they do about that kind of stuff, it's no wonder so many people like me are conflicted between the wanting more liberty and the wanting the laws enforced. 

It Is Not Of Course

I've seen several pro-gun lawyers saying that illegal aliens have gun rights because, of course, they have all the other rights like free speech and protections from illegal search and seizure.

But I think that's wrong.

I think that they don't have all those other rights because of the illegal nature of their presence.

They get the illusion of those rights because the process must not violate the rights of people whom are here legally.

The police must operate on the off chance that the person they are arresting is actually a citizen and behave accordingly; this gives the appearance that the illegals have rights.

PS: If a prison in El Salvador is unacceptable, we COULD release them in Atlantis.  What?  You never heard from them again?  Atlantis is very nice... 

Commonality

The Bondi Beach and Brown University shootings have something in common.

Both took place where the victims were banned from having a firearm.

Both sets of, alleged, shooters were Moslem.  This turned out to be a rumor.

Neither nation is predominantly Islamic. 

One was definitely, "let's murder the Jews!"  The Brown shooting might have been trying to shoot a specific Jew.

The Bondi Beach shooting was slowed down by the intervention of a Moslem!

This will be touted as justification for not stemming the flow of immigration.

The thing is, you cannot tell whom in the crowd of immigrants are waiting for their moment to enact the intifada and who wants to live a quiet live in a mostly secular manner.

If you cannot tell, then you kind of need to accept zero immigrants from places that have any people who're waiting for their moment to murder our citizens.

If the people you do accept refuse to assimilate, they should be deported.  They clearly wish to remain citizens of their homeland, so they should live there.

If the children of the people we accept turn out to have a trend of being criminals and non-productive citizens, we should definitely stop accepting immigrants from those nations too.

The poem in the Statue of Liberty has no legal power.  The New Colossus was written by Emma Lazarus and she was of a political bent that eventually coalesces into Socialism.

Don't be fooled by her pretty words!

I find, as a student of history, that I have to keep pointing out that the prior mass-immigrations to the US are an anomaly.  The Swedish, German, Italian and Irish waves came from a people very much like the Americans they joined and they assimilated readily...  Though it took years of prejudice and change for the mistrust of Catholicism in the Irish and Italians to fade.

Yet, despite language and religious differences, these peoples became Americans.

I repeat myself again...

I want every single immigrant to this nation to either already be an American with the misfortune of being born a foreigner; or to become an American as quickly as they can.

That means abandoning their, former, national identity.

It means learning to speak English.

It means respecting our laws, and forsaking the laws of their homeland.

It means abiding by our culture and ways of doing things.  This includes dropping things from their culture or religion in conflict with our culture and laws.

If they cannot, then they don't get to stay here!

Americans strive to be the good guys.  We want to help people in need.  We want to save people.

But there are times when you have to realize that you cannot save everyone and you most especially cannot save anyone if you won't save yourself.  Saving yourself sometimes means letting others die.

We still have time to avoid our generosity from becoming a suicide pact. 

But It's Legal Here

Something that just hit me about the injustice of banning felons from owning guns is all of the states have different laws.

Something that's a felony in California could be perfectly legal in Florida.

Catch a felony conviction in California, and you can't own a gun in Florida for doing something that wouldn't have gotten you a stern look from a cop.

That seems very unjust to me.

I've never seen it suggested that we even try to fix it.

But I think it's worth trying to fix!

But He Is

I was watching a video and they put up Chuck Schumer shrilly demanding that President Trump, "obey the law," and resume sending SNAP benefits.

Charles, after seeing your utter, and repeated, failure to understand the 2nd Amendment, I am not surprised you don't understand the rest of the Constitution either.

The president cannot spend a dime of government funds until Congress authorizes it.

The authorization for SNAP benefits expires on November 1st, 2025.

If he continues funding it after that date he will be breaking the law, not obeying it.

FFS, Chuck, you're making Cracker Jack look like a more reputable law school than Harvard. 

Trying To Figure It Out

California is banning Glocks because they're too easy to convert to full-auto.

California is blaming Glock for this.

This has me thinking.

Is there another product where the end-user modifies it and the manufacturer is responsible for the, illegal, modification?

I don't recall Ford, Chevy, GMC or Ram being implicated in the diesel tuner stuff.  Just the tuners, the companies who made the tuning software and, in some cases, the owners of the trucks.

I've seen people get in trouble for removing the catalytic converters, but never seen the automakers get busted.

I've seen people get in trouble for aftermarket lighting and never seen the automaker get even chided.

Have Apple or Microsoft been subpoenaed because their operating systems do nothing to stop child pornography?

Once again, it's guns, it's different.

Don't Piss In My Pocket

Attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel is thrilled that we keep losing at the circuit level over whether machine guns can be banned.

Core of his excitement seems to be that we're avoiding it going to SCOTUS, where we're sure to lose.

Dude.  We're already losing.  You're celebrating another loss.

I recognize the philosophy he's using.  As soon as we have the perfect defendant to fight this all the way to SCOTUS, THEN we pull out all the stops and...

I've been waiting for Mr or Ms Perfect since 1986.

They don't exist.

The kind of person they're looking for doesn't have illegal machine guns.  The perfect client doesn't break the law.

The thing about how our rights are supposed to work, and I cannot get lawyers to grasp the philosophy, is they also apply to the scummiest of the scum.

So, no, a scumbag should not be punished for breaking a law that's unconstitutional and they are the people who need to be protected from the government more than the beatified saintly law-abiding citizenry at large.

The Bill of Rights is for everyone, not just the best of us. 

I No Longer Believe They're Trying

I watched a video from Mark Smith's 4-Boxes Diner youtube channel where he's trying to spin a unanimous 6th Circuit decision that machine guns aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment is a good thing.

The guy busted with the Glock Switch® is a scumbag.

The gist of the spin is that scumbags don't get good decisions and we're better off with a bad outcome because scumbag.

I think.

His delivery is hard for me to follow sometimes.

But I think he's wrong with regards to how I've watched the Supreme Court act.

If all of the circuits agree on something, they don't grant cert.

The 6th Circuit judges are decently good on gun stuff, and they say no machine guns.

That's ammo for the opposition, frankly.

You pretty much need a circuit split on an issue to get them to take a case based on something they haven't already made their minds up on.  Even then, there's no guarantee.

Watching some of these gun lawyers being happy with things getting set in amber with painting us into the "bearable, common and not dangerous" only firearms pisses me off.

Starting with the last.  Is gun.  Is dangerous.  So accepting the "dangerous" as means of disqualifying 2a protection just means that we're going to fight a subjective standard in every case.

Common pisses me off for two reasons.

First is the shortsightedness that means that we're never going to get newer guns if they can ban them before they can become common.  If these lawyers had been presented with this in the early 1800's we'd have never have gotten caplocks because caplocks were unusual and uncommon; but everyday, common, flintlocks would be OK.

Second is machine guns are unusual BECAUSE of the NFA, GCA and FOPA.  They'd be common if it were possible for people to get new ones because people are more interested in them now than they were in 1986.

Lastly, bearable should frighten you because it will become subjective.  What's bearable?  By one person?  What about cannon?  Can you ban tanks?

Considering we used privately owned canon in the Revolution, it makes me doubt the founders wanted crew served banned.

Arms means every deadly instrument of the soldier.  Last I checked, soldier meant more than just infantry.

Another bolster for arms being more than what you can carry is Congress' power to issue letters of marque and reprisal.  That requires privately owned, crewed and operated warships.  That's main body Constitution too!  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

But even if we limit it to just what the grunts are lugging around, they're not carrying semi-automatic rifles.  They're carrying machine guns.

Tench Coxe is rolling in his grave. 

Barrier To Entry

Read this article about a CNA with an expired license passing herself off as an RN.

The Lovely Harvey used to be a CNA and The Boy's godmother is a current RN.

Wanna know the difference?

It's not much.

Some prerequisite classes, a couple tests and a license.

They agree there's not much actual difference in the skills needed for the job.

It's a license requirement.

Harvey's mom was a CNA as well, and is old enough to remember when it was just "nurse."  All the subcategories of nursing started with delineations in responsibility.

Entry level had more scut work and less responsibility.

In many cases, no formal education was required.  People were trained by the institution.

I suspect that lawyers for malpractice insurers stepped in somewhere here and now formal education is mandated for all but the glorified janitorial work.

But, early on, the education was the same and experience was how you got the higher positions.

Now, you need additional formal education and licenses to even apply, making it more expensive to meet the prerequisites and thus requiring more salary to compensate for their investment.

I will bet you that my first aid training from The Army is sufficient to provide most of the care that this, arrested, former CNA did on 4,400 patients.

I speculate on this because I did that care for Harvey when she was recovering from her shoulder replacement.  Husbands are allowed to be unlicensed nurses on their wives with no formal education!  We had an RN on call for emergencies, but most of the actual care is simple and easy stuff.

UPDATE: It is important to note that the person in question was doing the job successfully and it was only a background check prior to A PROMOTION that got her busted.

The Wrong Kind

Anyone else think it's ironic that parolees have, as a condition of their parole, a mandate to avoid the criminal elements of society and nearly always have a requirement to live in a half-way house for a period of time after release?

A half-way house that will be filled with their fellow parolees, who are from the criminal element they are supposed to avoid... 

Short

The US Senate appears to have put the Short Act verbiage back into the Big Beautiful Bill®.

If this makes it, intact, to the president's desk that means that I wasted $800 in tax stamps.

Darn.

No more NFA for suppressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

I've always wanted a DOE 9mm AR, but the pistol brace looked off.

H&R would be able sell it to me as a rifle, with the correct stock.

H&R would also be adding a lot of XM177 content to their catalog. 

Calculated Tyranny

Look at how fast the 9th Circuit moves when the matter at hand is something the liberals are screaming about.

See how slow they are about getting a gun case through the system?

One would almost say it's on purpose because justice delayed is justice denied, and the 9th is consistently against justice. 

Just In Case Nobody Notices

In the little tiff between Governor Newsome and President Trump about calling up the National Guard...

Not one mention of the National Guard being the militia.

Just like the pro-gun people have long maintained:  The National Guard is just another grouping of the standing, Federal, Army with a special clause to allow the Governor to call them up for in-state use.

Also of note is the part of USC Trump cited in calling up the guard.

10 UCS § 12406.

Whenever—

(1)

the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2)

there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3)

the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

Our protestors should seriously consider finding some uniforms of the nation they are protesting for; because they're skating dangerously close to the definition of partisans and or espionage agents of a foreign power.

Explain It To Me

How is it that a district judge can make a national ruling, but a circuit decision is limited to the circuit?

I thought that any decision was supposed to be limited to the jurisdiction the judge was appointed to.

I guess not.

Real ID

Florida was among the first states to go full on with the Real ID requirements.

I've had mine for a bit more than 14 years now.

So far it's been no different than the Fake ID it replaced.

Not Just The Jones Act

The Jones Act dates to 1920.

Between 1940 and 1945 the US was making cargo ships faster than Germany and Japan, combined, could make torpedoes.

Almost all of the ship building capacity is now gone, but if the Jones act was solely responsible, it would have been missing in 1940 when we started cranking out ships to supply England.

It wasn't just cargo ships.  We made a fuck ton of other ships as well, in particular destroyers.

Eliminating the Jones act isn't going to address some fundamental aspects of making things in the US and one must look squarely into the face of environmental regulation and labor unions.

Because killing the Jones act will create a situation like making cars.  Japan and Korea do a great job of keeping market share here, don't they?

We Have Been Ordered By The Court To Say

I noticed at the local tobaccanist there's a sign that says that "RJR Tobacco has been ordered to display this sign stating that smoking is harmful to your health by court order wherever our products are sold."

The phrasing of that really makes me think.

They're not saying their products cause harm.  They're saying they've been ordered to say it.

It's like when your parents told you say thank you for the slipper socks from your aunt.

It's like then the coach tells you to say you're sorry and shake hands.

You don't mean it, but you have to say it.

Now, I am not saying that smoking is good for you.

I will go out on a limb and point out that neither side is being completely honest and that every single study on tobacco use was paid for by one side or the other and the results are suspect because of the "he who pays the piper calls the tune" bias.

Round-Up herbicide is the same sort of thing.  Convincing a jury to pay out is not the same thing as the plaintiff's claims being actually true.  There's a part of me that still believes that if it were truly harmful that after losing that case, the regulatory agency in charge of it would be forcing them to pull it off the market.