Fish Or Man

Friday, December 23, 2005

Donate To The Red Cross Or Else

Not able to meet fund raising drives because of a nasty record of response to Hurricane Katrina, Red Cross CEO was almost faced with not receiving a six figure income... until. (Another version here.)

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Justices Tell Ladies To Get Armed

Offender won't be allowed to live with women.

Quite an odd sentence for drug charges? Although, this guy has a "long history of domestic violence". Why he hasn't already been punished for this "long history", we aren't told? Another source. Anyway:

When Brandenburg is released from prison in October, he will be banned from living with any woman for a year. He must notify women with whom he has social contact of his history of violence, and must tell his probation officer within 12 hours of meeting them."
How badly could he beat a woman in 12 hours? But, the quote from the appeals court finally made some sense:
"Enough ladies are getting armed these days that we are hoping that his next victim will just shoot him. Our justice system is a complete failure in dealing with domestic violence offenders. We only pray his next victim will be one of those armed ladies and be willing to do what we don't have the balls for."
.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Let's Clear Something Up

Amazingly, I was referred to as a "bleeding heart liberal"? (bottom of page)

While I am against the violation of my rights by this current government, I am not naive enough to believe that different leadership would stop those violations, (nor even lessen the abuse of power). The 'people' have decided to allow government to grow at will. The courts have decided the Constitution should be a "living" document, (giving the people whatever they want). Voting to have someone else drive this steamroller into someone else's neighborhood is just as destructive.

I suppose I shouldn't take this person's comment seriously; he also said I was for nation wide CCW??? NO. NO. NO.

That would be the growth of government, (and centralized at that). That would be a liberal idea. Government should NEVER be allowed to decide how a person keeps or bears arms, ("shall not infringe"). Laws, which everyone knows are violating the RKBA, should be challenged at every usurpation. Yet, there are gun rights groups screaming we NEED "nation wide CCWs"??? What the hell are wrong with these people? Can they not see that that is GROWTH of government? (Or are they blinded by power, see below).

Why settle for the scraps from Longshank's table, when you're missing your God-given right to freedom?

Crap, here comes Braveheart again.

So, let's go to "The Lord of the Rings". Specifically, the Ring Bearer.

What effect does the ring have? It changes the person. It is power, twisting at your ego and greed. No matter how good the person was before the ring, they begin to enjoy that power. Will a Conceal Carry Weapon Permit holder be affected the same way the ring effected a hobbit? Of course not, we don't live in a fantasy world. But, no one wants to give up power! And the desire for more is in us all.

While I still believe we never lose the power of choice... Frodo was ultimately destroyed by that ring.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Government Regulates Why?

To stop bad things BEFORE they happen, of course.

Like those regulations to stop violent criminals from getting guns. Crap, missed another one. But, when a criminal gets a gun, it is not Government's fault! They aren't allowed to regulate guns enough to keep us safe. But if Government had as much regulation over guns as they do explosives, we would all be safer. CRAP, missed again. This time 150 pounds missing:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- About 150 pounds of commercial plastic explosives has disappeared from a private storage site, along with 2,500 blasting caps and 20,000 feet of explosive detonation cord, authorities said Monday.

....

"Our cause for concern is that these materials are highly energetic, military-style explosives that are not commonly used in commercial industry," said ATF spokesman Tom Mangan.


What is going on here? It's a time of war, when we must spy on fellow citizens to insure liberty. How does 150 pounds just disappear? And who will be the victim when Government "finds" their missing explosives? Wait, is this perhaps a research study for our benefit:

"...the company performs "research for the law enforcement community" but declined to elaborate."

But, where was the failure? It must have just been the lowly agent forgetting to dot his i's and cross his t's on the necessary paperwork that caused this 150 pounds of explosives to go missing:

Cherry Engineering was federally certified as an explosives storage facility and was in compliance with ATF regulations, Dixie said. The site was inspected weekly.


Oh, boy... you mean all those regulations and still the criminals get their weapons. Unbelievable. Definitely time for more regulations.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Homemade Christmas Goodies

Tis' the season to slave away in the kitchen.


My feet hurt.

Merry Christmas,
FishOrMan's Wife

Some Are Worried

Some seem a little worried that I might have hurt the gun rights 'movement' with my case. Like Washington State might close the law "allowing" open carry. When no one open carries anyway, why would they even care??? I don't know...

But, I do know this caused more harm then a thousand open carrying convictions. Hide those guns better, gun owners!

"That FishOrMan guy just needs to shut the hell up or they won't let us ride on the bus at all!"

I May Need Some Help

With Meg.

Maybe reading this and then this would help.

Solved And Unsolved Murders

Armed Females of America links us to an FBI bulletin including surviving the myth: One Shot One Kill

Key point: (nah, I won't ruin it for you).

The entire bulletin is an informative read. Outside of the main points in the article, I found this bit of information rather enlightening:

"... Of the 665 persons charged with killing a law enforcement officer for this time period, only 9 remained fugitives. The majority (464) of these individuals were arrested and convicted of murder. The victim officers justifiably killed only 23 of their attackers. Other officers responding to the scene killed an additional 78 offenders. Sixty-two of the perpetrators committed suicide after killing the officer. ..."

So, that leaves 627 offenders dead or convicted of murder. That's 627 out of 665... 94% of those murders solved. 94%!


Meanwhile... in San Francisco:


"...in 74 of the 94 homicides recorded through Monday afternoon in 2005, no arrest has been made..."

That is only 21% of murders solved. And in San Francisco that rate probably dropped lower even before the story was published.


"US"............21%
vs
"THEM".....94%

(I realize other factors are involved, time frame being a major one, but that leaves a very big gap to even bring those numbers close. From the article we see police blame the citizens of San Fran for this horrible percentage. )

National the solved murder rate for the year 2004 was 62.6%, having a steady decline since the late 70's. Was that around the time the War On *some Drugs picked up?

So, if you are fortunate enough to live outside of San Fran we have this for a solved muder rate:

"US".........62.6%
vs
"THEM".....94%


GUN UP! They don't care even in your death, yet you count on them to protect your life?


With more on muder rates, head over to todays post from David Codrea at the War On Guns.


On a lighter note: Did you know that the state with the highest percentage of unsolved murders is actually Alabama? It makes sense when you think about it... the DNA is all the same! (sorry)

Saturday, December 17, 2005

The Actual Decision

(The bolding is mine, the italic is the judge's)


SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KITTITAS COUNTY

FISHORMAN,
Appellant,

Vs.

CITY OF ELLENSBURG,
Respondent,

No. 05-1-00161-4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PROCEEDINGS

A Lower Kittitas County District Court jury found Appellant guilty of one count of unlawful display of a weapon in violation of Ellensburg City Code (ECC) 7.32.08. Appellant seeks reversal of the conviction on the grounds that ECC 7.32.08 is preempted by RCW 9.41.290. Oral argument occurred on December 5, 2005.


DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review. {Insert legal paragraph here about what a review can and cannot pass judgment on.…}

2. Relevant Facts. The facts of this matter are not complicated. On May 22, 2004 Appellant entered the Washington Mutual Bank located within the Fred Meyer store located within the city limits of Ellensburg, Kittitas County, Washington. While in the bank and in the Fred Meyer store Appellant was carrying a 1911-style .45 caliber pistol in the waistband of his pants with the hammer cocked. Law enforcement was summoned and Appellant was ultimately charged with one violation of Ellensburg City Code (ECC) 7.32.08. On March 3, 2005 the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss the charge on the grounds that RCW 9.41.290 preempted ECC 7.32.08. A jury convicted Appellant as charged on May 6, 2005. On June 2, 2005 Appellant was sentenced to 90 days confinement with 90 days suspended; a $500 fine with $250 suspended; and 12 months of unsupervised probation.

3. Legal Issues on Appeal. Has RCW 9.41.290 preempted ECC 7.32.08?

4. Analysis. Appellant assigns two errors to the proceedings below: (1) that the trial court “erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss” and (2) that the trial court “erred in allowing Jury Instruction No. 5.” As both assignments of error turn on the relationship between RCW 9.41.290 and ECC 7.32.08, a description of both is appropriate.

RCW 9.41.290 is entitled “State preemption” and states in pertinent part:

“Cities… may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter… Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed… (emphasis added).

RCW 9.41.300 is entitled “Weapons prohibited in certain places – Local laws and ordinances – Exceptions – Penalty” and states in pertinent part:

(2) Cities… may enact laws and ordinances:

(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions…

(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center…

(3)(a) Cities… may enact ordinances restricting the areas… in which firearms may be sold…

(3)(b) Cities… may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds…

Accordingly, from the plain language of RCW 9.41.290 and 300, cities may only enact laws and ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms, restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, or restricting the location of where firearms may be sold. Other laws “shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed.” RCW 9.41.290

ECC 7.32.08 is entitled “Making, Selling, Concealing Weapons” and states in pertinent part:

“It is unlawful for any person to… carry… any… pistol… in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time or place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons…”

Since this ordinance regulates the manner in which a person may carry a pistol, and since legislature has clearly prohibited cities from regulating this conduct, this ordinance is “repealed” and has no force and effect. RCW 9.41.290; RCW 9.41.300. Appellant’s conviction must therefore be reversed.

The parties spend much time in their briefs addressing whether ECC 7.32.08 is “inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed[s] the requirements of” RCW 9.41.270. Although the court’s decision above is determinative, this issue merits discussion as well.

RCW 9.41.270 is entitled “Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm – Unlawful carrying or handling – Penalty – Exceptions” and states in pertinent part:

“(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry… any firearm… in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons…”

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.”

Since the city ordinance does not contain the limitations set forth in RCW 9.41.270 (3), the language used in the ordinance regulates more people and more situations than the statute and thus the ordinance is inconsistent with, more restrictive than, and exceeds the requirements of state law. (NOTE FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE: “Note also RCW 9.41.270 restricts weapons “at a time and place” while ECC 7.32.08 restricts weapons “at a time or place.”)

The City argues that none of the limitations described in RCW 9.41.270(3)(a) - (e) apply to Appellant’s conduct, and since the core conduct prohibited by the ordinance is the same as the conduct regulated by RCW 9.41.270, the conviction should be affirmed. That argument, although factually correct in this case, does not aid the court in the determination of whether the language of the ordinance is inconsistent with the language of RCW 9.41.270. “RCW 9.41.270 was enacted to reform that situation in which counties, cities, and towns could each enact conflicting criminal codes regulating the general public’s possession of firearms.” Cherry v. Metro Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 801 (1991) (emphasis added). The legislature sought “to eliminate a multiplicity of local laws relating to firearms and to advance uniformity in criminal firearms regulation.” Id. [NOTE FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE: ECC 7.32.08 was enacted prior to the current version of RCW 9.41.290, which appears to have been an emphatic legislative response to the court’s decision in Seattle v. Ballsmider, 71 Wn. App. 159 (1993).]

In summary, the legislature, through RCW 9.41.290, has limited the scope of municipal regulation of firearms to those situations described in RCW 9.41.300. Since ECC 7.32.08 attempts to regulate activities outside those narrowly defined areas, ECC 7.32.08 has been repealed by RCW 9.41.290. Even if the plain language of RCW 9.41.290 should be ignored to allow a city to pass an ordinance restricting the carrying of firearms, any such ordinance would still be required to be consistent on its face with the language of RCW 9.41.270. Since the language of ECC 7.32.08 is inconsistent with the language of RCW 9.41.270, the ordinance has been repealed.

Appellant’s conviction should be reversed and dismissed. The case shall be remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.

DATED: December 14, 2005

JUDGE Scott Sparks

(NOTE FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE: Appellant must realize that had the State charged him under RCW 9.41.270 the conviction would most likely have been sustained. The witnesses in this case, two separate district court judges, a unanimous jury, and the City Prosecutor all agreed that Appellant’s choice to carry a firearm in his waistband with the hammer cocked “warranted alarm for the safety of other person.” If Appellant seeks to educate the public about the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms in the state of Washington, he may wish to utilize less provocative methods that do not entail the threat of criminal prosecution.)


FishOrMan's After Action Report: Judge Sparks put in a great deal of effort into attempting to understand the many complex gun laws, (which I thank him for, Thank YOU!) He took a slightly different take then expected in his decision -- ruling cities cannot make any law regulating the carrying of firearms, (unless it fits the narrowly defined exceptions chapter 9.41.300.) This was a surprise for me, but actually makes sense if the preemption law is read in a slightly different manner. It was also nice to see that even when reading the preemption law the way I had understood it to be, the city code would still have been repealed.

As for the judge's final footnote warning: My handgun will now always be carried outside the waistband and the hammer will be down, Hammer DOWN! Not a very smart way to carry a 1911, but the law is the law and I wouldn't want to scare any sheeple before I blow my leg off). Sorry, your honor. But if you knew 1911s you would understand the term, "cocked and locked," (And if an expert witness from a gun rights group had showed up, the hammer being back wouldn't be allowed to be used against a gun owner in court records where a precedent could have been set. Yet, an idiotic officer, paid by the state, is allowed to get on the stand and say that is an "alarming" way to carry a 1911. You know... because they are "gun experts" and all. Cluebat anyone?)

Seriously though, I was twice offered the "chance" for a plea deal in this case. Without the SAF making the slightest move to stand up for gun rights in my case, I came close to taking the deal. But, due to some very insightful information early on from fellow Washington gun rights activist, Lonnie Wilson, I turned this plea deal down TWICE. The information from Mr. Wilson caused me to look into the law I was charged with further and see it's many failures. With that belief, I put little effort into the actual trial. (In fact, the day I showed up for trial I was very surprised it even took place since discovery by the prosecution was delayed until just as I arrived that morning). So, I certainly didn't put a full effort into the case, heck, that is obvious, I fought it Pro se.

As for actually carrying a handgun again; I cannot think of anyway the state currently allows me to bear arms that doesn't bring at least some "threat of prosecution." Either I take that to mean the RIGHT to bear arms is dead; Or I willingly turn a right into a priviledge; Or I live my life threatened by the state. Really though... aren't we all?

.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Get To Know Your Elites

It can really pay off:

A Kentucky appeals court ruled Friday that Gov. Ernie Fletcher had the authority to issue a blanket pardon covering all employees who might be charged during a probe of his administration's hiring practices.

The three-member panel unanimously said that the grand jury convened by Kentucky's attorney general can still bring charges against those covered by the pardon, but the defendants can have the charges dismissed merely by asking.

A grand jury impaneled in June has indicted 13 current and former administration members and associates, mostly on charges that they illegally made hiring decisions based on political influence instead of merit.


And the funniest part... the prosecution declares this a victory:

The attorney general praised the ruling. "The rule of law requiring public disclosure of government corruption has been upheld, ..."

So, when the elites in our society commit crimes, the punishment THEY receive is WE are forced to hear about it??? Why do I feel the need to grab my ankles...

Unite The Clans

Maybe we can try something here.

Is there a gun friendly little town in Washington to hold an open carry parade? Not openly exposing yourself like the Gay and Animal Rights organizations put on, but openly displayed firearms. (Hey! You gotta go with what works.)

Gay rights group got tired of the status quo and started exposing themselves to the public and they have gained acceptence by leaps and bounds. Heck, even motorcyclists have Sturgis. Yet, gunowners have what... "news releases." Are we really that satisfied with the status quo?

Back to this little town; we could add thousands in sales to local businesses; the towns crime rate would drop to zero; and, we, as peaceful gun owners would make our existence known to the public.

Since the SAF is based in Washington State, I would call on them to help organize this event. I know of many towns in Eastern Washington that are dying for the cash.

If no towns were willing in Washington, can we at least get our own version of Sturgis in an actual gun-friendly state?

NRA??? SAF??? Your compromising and politics are no longer cutting it with the American gunowner. Or is all that money raised for press releases and future fund drives?

What say YOU? Are you happy with the status quo and that permission slip?

Personally, I would travel a thousand miles to carry without fear of prosecution.

(I need to stop now, or many quotes from the movie Braveheart will be spoken.)

Free At Last

I have awaken every morning for almost a year now with a bond hanging over my head. (Actually, a $5000 lien hanging over my mother's house, thanks mom!).

That is the way I was forced to live with from the day I turned myself in and paid off the bondsman. (The threat was if I didn't do it that way, I could be held in the Spokane jail until being shipped to Ellensburg on last year's Christmas Eve.)

So, I have had this bond over me every morning until this morning. It was a bright morning with an early dusting of fresh snow. Thank God, I am free at last.


Right in the middle of the worst of last years holiday season I posted this. She deserves thanks too.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

The Judge's Decision Is In

I just found out two minutes ago.

Oh, boy... ok... the bottom line is I WON MY APPEAL against the conviction of "warranting alarm" for open carrying a handgun in the city of Ellensburg.

Yeah, that's right. The Ellensburg case is dismissed, conviction over-turned. The city code was ruled inconsistent with the state version and preemption applied. The law was repealed!

I filed my complaint against Ellensburg police on June 1st, 2004, ten days after being stopped by police while open carrying. Only after the complaint was I issued a citation, (via mail which the post office failed to delivery due to street address/PO box differences).

The warrant that was then issued then lead to this police stop in Spokane. (Just glad I wasn't informed of the warrant by way of the "no-knock".)

The Ellensburg judge's decision reaches 6 pages, which I don't currently have in my hands yet, (more details later).

I fought this entire case pro se, without the help of the gun rights organization based in Washington State, (although it was requested).

And I am not alone in laying it all out on the line. Those that have the ability and knowledge to do so... must.


Update: The actual decision is up now.

Update for Washington State gun owners: Mr. Bill in the Claire files forum asked a very good question in this thread:
But as I understand it, what you succeeded in doing is to force an illegal city ordinance to be preempted and repealed. This is excellent, but if the cops had simply charged you under the state law rather than the city ordinance, you wouldn't have succeeded. So you (and all of us in Washington state) probably ought to figure that's exactly what will happen next time around.

Is there any way to open-carry in a manner that does not warrant alarm in others (legally speaking)?

I answered:
"...you wouldn't have succeeded."

Not necessarily. I then would have been forced to make my appeal on the law of "warranting alarm" being unconstitutional vague when attempted to be applied to a person peacefully carrying a handgun, (it also violates a citizen's right to bear arms, but that is actually another issue of the appeal).

and then followed up with this statement:

I believe the only precedent set with someone peacefully open carrying was a man in south Seattle carrying an AK type rifle strapped over his shoulders. They cited things as vague as him looking straight ahead while he walked, in order to claim the law wasn't being applied in a vague manner. (And that he was already packing a pistol concealed with his CPL to say the law didn't violate his "right to bear arms".) Another reason not to get a CPL, (beside the fact that a CPL is just playing into the gun control crowd's hands).

I have yet to see the precedent of someone peacefully carrying a handgun convicted under the "warranting alarm" bogus, law.

...

I believe the step is a large one from applying this law to someone carrying an AK, and then saying it can apply to a handgun. But, the truth is there is only one way to find out. Sitting on our collective hands, (hiding all weapons), and waiting for the NRA/SAF and others to play politics with our right to bear arms only helps the gun control organization gain more footing among the citizens who don't know the simple truth about guns.

As for me, I will live my life, complying with laws which do not violate a basic human right. As for the others...


And please, don't get me wrong on CPL's. We all have a choice of whether to get a CPL, and I understand why some make that choice. But, why in the land of the free we are required to make that choice is something I have yet to accept. As for more why I personally won't get one, I can't find anything wrong with this gentlemen's statements: bearman45.

Antique Shotgun For Sale







Extreme rare beauty she is.

As for the shotgun, in gold lettering between the barrels says, "TH. KLAWITTER in HERZBERG." I am no expert, so I won't attempt to play the salesmen role. Web searches tell us "the Klawitters were a famous Herzberg family of gun makers. August Franz Theodor Klawitter (1824-1893) even became the Court Armourer to the Kings of Hanover."

Anyway,
this double barrel shotgun is currently hanging on the wall of a good friend of mine who desires the money over it's ornamental value. So if you are the type that would like this beauty hanging over your fireplace, send an email my way, (shootatfish@yahoo.com). Also more pictures are available, (of the shotgun that is).

I did find another of Klawitter's arms for sale here.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

WA State Democrats Fish Magnet

I have yet to see the MSM actually showing the magnet in question:



I see why the media didn't publish the picture, it might be called "hate speech." The Washington State Democrats simply call it a campaign car magnet.

This is just another reason why Bush won. Keep it up demonrats.


710 KIRO's Dori Monson broke the story and is keeping a copy of the original page here.

50+ Days Without A Drink


Keep it up Rob. {Caution, you may need to lower your standards before clicking thru.}

Do You Remember?

"It's our own citizens. We're displaced, we have moved belongings. People seem to be forgetting their responsibility," he said.

No, they are remembering it!



Sir Robert Peel's "Principles of Policing"

"...the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen..."

Visiting Texas Soon?

Cut your hair first.

"This is about a guy who wound up spending 11 days in jail on what started out as a jaywalking charge in downtown Dallas."

Link found via No Quarters.

Belarus, Start Shipping Them Firearms NOW

President Alexander Lukashenko is working on becoming another dictator. There is, or course, nothing wrong with that in Belarus. They have a Constitution, "the right to vote," and, according to polls, the Belarusian people don't mind having a dictator. Of course they don't, via TIME;
Under a law passed in 1998, any word or action interpreted as an offense against the President can be punished by up to five years in jail.

And more recently the law passed calling for two years in prison for "discredit of the state." Just what that means is... who knows??? But you can be sure it gives more power to the state's KGB. Yes, they still use the term 'KGB' because it strikes more fear in their citizen's, (and you thought that fear was just from US government propaganda during the Cold War).

So, just today we learn that in the name of "public safety";
Belarusian lawmakers on Wednesday passed legislation that would crack down on Internet dating and online spouse searches in the latest of a series of stringent government controls backed by authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko.
Via Forbes

That is to stop "human trafficking" of course. You know, like trying to get to the other side of the wall they have yet to build. Or better yet, 4000 people out of walls that have been built:

"...in the last decade, at least 4,000 citizens have been imprisoned on political charges."


And while President Alexander Lukashenko is just another tyrant, he does show more respect for their Constitution then our elected officials. He changed it, instead of just violating it, also from TIME;
"...the President rammed through a constitutional change allowing him unlimited terms in office. By next July, he intends to run for his third five-year term, in effect sealing his presidency for life -- this in a European country of some 10 million educated, skilled and remarkably law-abiding people."

10 million educated, skilled, law-abiding, and for the most part.... UNARMED! (It appears they are still allowed some access to whatever the state declares as, "hunting rifles." Although, you should not be surprised to learn that President Lukashenko has signed on to the United Nations Firearm Protocol.)

If you live in the United States of America, you can sleep good tonight knowing we have a respected Constitution that would never allow a dictator to take over a country. Well, we do have a Constitution, anyway!


Rough Men

Link via Gun Law News

Anyone who is willing to use a firearm in the defense of the innocent, (or if one day you think you might be willing to), should GO. READ. NOW.

A Tactical Analysis of the Tyler Courthouse Shooting and the Tacoma Mall Shooting

*If you are the type to just go through your day hoping you are never present when terror strikes, you should also read this to find out what rough men stand willing to do on your behalf.






















Images courtesy A Human Right.com

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Here We Go Again

Joe commented on a sad news story from Ireland. "Defenseless household terrorized by criminals." There is much more to the story then that, but all in all, it remains a rather common news story from across the pond.

Then Dan from Ireland stopped by Joe's and commented on how gun control was going over wonderfully in his country.

Joe responded with the facts on gun control, (he is like that). Joe was absolutely right, yet, sadly those facts probably never made it in front of Dan's eyeballs.

Yosemite Sam even stopped by with a question for Dan from Ireland, (who is likely at one of his local pubs by now talking about those cowboys in the United States).


I also left the following comment, not for Dan, but for myself:

This is the problem we run into when we have the discussion on gun rights focused on the ability to defend against common criminals. With that limited focus, Dan is right, (or, with his version of the perfect society it could be right). "If only we had better law enforcement." "If only we would win the war on drugs." "If only the criminal would have been locked up sooner."

You said it yourself, Joe: "I'm all for improving the effectiveness of the police and the judiciary. And if that can be done to the point that owning defensive tools is irrelevant--wonderful. And in that case it would also be irrelevant if people possessed defensive tools."

This only leads Dan, using the very limited focus on common criminals, with the belief that guns COULD be irrelevant in his perfect society. So we now have gun control advocates fighting all the harder to create the impossibly perfect society, where guns are irrelevant. (And our "cold dead fingers" slogan really doesn't fit in with this perfect society.)

Therefore, any gun control discussion should never fail to leave out the real reason guns are necessary; GOVERNMENT becoming the criminal. It's not like history doesn't prove that it happens!

Governments always tend toward creating an elite class. That elite class continues to have the right to bear arms, while the "common man" is continually limited. The only way for the common man to remain with a fighting chance against the inevitable 'government becoming criminal' is to have that fight while the common man is still armed.

In that sense it is already too late for Dan and his country, (unless, his government's elite class is willing to give up power.. YEAH RIGHT!) So, Dan has two choices; get himself killed attempting to throw off the chains of his government, or; turn hell into paradise.

I will not judge Dan's decision of paradise, for one day, I may believe I am there as well.

.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Cory Maye, Self-Defense Or Prior Restraint

Radley Balko, at The Agitator, is running with another case of No-Knock warrants destroying lives. Like the last one I covered, this one has the wrong address, but this time leading to the death of a code enforcement officer, and now an innocent man who attempted to defend his family on death row.

Glenn Reynolds covers the case.

Publicola is linked to by Glenn. BitchGirls as well.

Billy Beck is on it.

Kim gives his two-cents, feeling the need to explain his support of No-Knock warrants, but only "in order to catch serious criminals" Kim calls them "serious criminals." I call them, *the wrong drug offenders. Don't worry Kim, government already tried and failed at taking your bottle.

But, the fact is, warrants can be issued over thousands of "crimes" peaceful citizens are unknowingly committing on a daily basis. These laws are arbitrary and enforced capriciously, turning these laws into a political tool of the elite. Now, whether a judge allows these warrants to be issued No-Knock style is only a question of whether the police ask for it, (the judge will side with the police every time on this one... you know, it's for "officer safety").

It is also extremely unlikely that police will warn you to turn yourself in before executing this No-Knock warrant. Even with the normal bench warrants, (like the type issued against me in the Ellensburg case), you will generally learn of this warrant during your next speeding ticket. Yet, when the No-Knock warrant is issued, you will be begging to go to jail with only your car towed. (If we also throw into the mix the secret warrants the Patriot Act calls for... you generally stand little chance of clearing your name before ending up on the next episode of C.O.P.S.)


So, with No-Knock warrants now common practice in all 50 states, does this become an act of self-defense, or the citizen's only method of prior restraint against a tyrannical government.

Yes, I have lost all compassion for tyrants, (just wait until one turns on you with the power of the state behind them and then tell me how I should feel.) The BEST they should ever be treated is with contempt.

One last thing, here is Cory Maye, the man Mississippi will soon be legally murdering, (at which point it will become ever more clear the "us verses them" police have been predicting has arrived.)

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Close To Home

WAY TOO CLOSE, (only three blocks away) Three found dead yesterday

Developing story, but being reported as murder/suicide. That is what the locals say anyway, but they called in for an investigation team from Seattle to determine, (where they are use to murders). Should that make me feel better?

Anyway, not sure why local police issued an "Attempt To Locate" for a car possibly involved. Which I didn't hear reported in the news. The "Attempt To Locate" was cancelled late last night.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Good News

Carnaby Fudge tells us that the Brady Campaign is warning of eminent doom in Washington state, (You know the kind: BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!).

I am quite encouraged in this information. After losing in Florida the Brady idiots have turned to what should be a supportive state, (left-leaning Washington*), yet they see the writing on the wall. And even screaming this while the lefty Gregoire sits in the governor's mansion!!! Icing on the cake.


*Mostly it is just left-leaning King County, but with the population divide, that's all it takes to take the entire state.

.

I Would Think So...

Tacoma Mall Shooting Charge Upgraded To Attempted Murder

Prosecutors said that comment and other information from McKown could help justify the attempted-murder charge by showing Maldonado arrived at the mall with killing on his mind.

"...help justify..." Weren't his criminal actions justification enough for an attempted-murder charge??? Pierce county prosecutors sound like they were just shipped in from France after doing such a wonderful job with that little rioting problem.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Are You A Menace...

To Criminals?

"... It is an act of good citizenship to make crime dangerous -- an encouragement of crime to remain defenseless."


From the quote of the day from the View From North Central Idaho.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Oral Arguments Today

Very long three hour drive last night through snow, fog, ice, and more snow to get to Ellensburg for the Oral Arguments which happened this morning at 11 am.

I started with reserving 2 minutes for responding to the City of Ellensburg prosecutor. Then gave a quick run down on the state law having preemption on all firearms related issue, and the city law not being consistent with the state law. Finished with Sir Robert Peel's quote, Law Fails to Command Respect When It Is Arbitrary, and Enforced Capriciously.

Ellensburg prosecutor said her peace... "just because the exceptions aren't in the law doesn't mean the laws are inconsitent..." "The same core conduct is ruled illegal." Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Prosecutor did claim the issue was about "the safety and general welfare of the public" so the law should get the complete benefit of the doubt on being constitutional.

I was able to respond to that in my reserved 2 minutes, with... "disarming the public has nothing to do with the safety of the population, it has to do with gun CONTROL." I even gave a short run-down on the recent Tacoma mall shooting and that sadly only one citizen with the ability to end that shooting quickly was present and that more armed citizens could have made a difference.

Judge Scott Sparks said he would review the case and issues more and make a ruling afterwards, (at which time I would receive his decision in the mail).

Anyway, when I know you will know.