2ND Amendment Ruling Due in 2008

[Haggis@wk]

Will have to make one of them with a pink stock...

How much sanding do you have to do to get the pink to stay true to the color?

[analog]

The quickest way is to scrape with a piece of glass from a broken soda bottle until you're down to clean wood before sanding smooth. You can find a curve that's just right for every nook and cranny.
It's a good thing to do in front of TV - an evening or two does it.

If it's a good walnut stock i use a gunstock finish like plain old Tru-Oil brand, which is a like a thick varnish that dries slow enough to smooth out. I've used polyurethane but it takes more coats to get that thick glassy finish... lighter wood of course you can stain to your taste, varnish optional.

The pink one will be a good oil based enamel paint.

The surface rust on an old barrel will clean up surprisingly well with 220 wet-or-dry sandpaper and a pick to clean out the lettering. When it's down to bare metal i go over it with 400, then clean it good with spray carburetor or brake cleaner . Immediately warm it in the oven and rub on that liquid cold blue. Let that set overnight and repeat a couple more times.
You can make a rusty old gun look well cared for, and that feels good.

.22's are the most fun for they don't hurt your ears or shoulder, and the cost is a couple cents a round versus a dollar for 30/06.

My neighbors Harry and Ray are way more advanced gun hobbyists than I. They will carve a stunningly beautiful stock from an old walnut tree root. The roots at base of the stump is where the fanciest grain patterns come from. And they can do hot bluing.

i recently got an entry level digital camera. if can figure out how to get it talking to this old computer will post picture in projects.......

a.

[piqaboo]

Will have to make one of them with a pink stock....

Dont you DARE.
Go for glitter instead.

[jamiebk]

Will have to make one of them with a pink stock....

Dont you DARE.
Go for glitter instead.

Oh yes....and some leather fringe.

[dai bread]

Maori used to carve elaborate stylised patterns on their musket stocks. I haven't seen them do it on rifle or shotgun stocks, but I've no doubt it's done in some places.

[Haggis@wk]

Maori used to carve elaborate stylised patterns on their musket stocks. I haven't seen them do it on rifle or shotgun stocks, but I've no doubt it's done in some places.

In the runup to the first Gulf War I was in southwest Saudi Arabia, Khamis Mushayl, where we "hid" the F-117 "Stealth fighters." One Saturday, My contact in the Saudi Air Force invited me to go with him while he bought his son an AK-47 for his 21st birthday. I was intrigued and went along. After we have traveled through some winding mountain roads we arrived at a village with an arms market. My friend ordered, piece by piece, a very elaborately engraved and fancy weapon with gold plated receiver and barrel. The stock was equally elaborate and the whole thing cost about $500. I thought at the time that if there was any way I could have legally gotten it into the U.S. I would have bought one.

Anyway, as we wandered around I notice a mailbox and remembered I had made up a postcard to send to my sons and pulled it out and told my friend I was going to post it. He took a look at the postcard and said I couldn't send it because it had Saudi stamps and we were in north Yemen.

Remember that during the runup Yemen was considered to be hostile to the war effort and that I was a military counterintelligence agent in Yemen, in civilian clothing. Legally, morally, technically and every other "-ally" I was a spy.

To say that I was on the verge of gibbering like an idiot would be untrue, I WAS gibbering like an idiot!

My friend just laughed and invoked the most widely used phrase in that and every other event in the Middle East "No problem, Inshallah"

I was soooo grateful when he finally announced on the return ride that we were (probably) back in Saudi Arabia - no border markings or outposts.

This is the first time I have ever mentioned this in a public forum. I never told my boss at the time.

[analog]

Will have to make one of them with a pink stock....

Dont you DARE.
Go for glitter instead.

Thanks - you have a point there.
And i'm the one touting "Reviving Ophelia"....

[jamiebk]

Was someone talking about scarcity of ammo a while back? Maybe it's because of this recall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8XcVc_0 ... popt17us0a

[analog]

whoever made that is way more sick than what they attempted to satire.

but these days 'anything goes'..
have you seen the japanese animated series "gunslinger girls' on ifc ?
young orphan girls turned into terminators?
i saw last part of one episode by accident, couldn't believe it was on the airwaves, watched one more to be sure.

i dont understand the world anymore.

[Haggis@wk]

More on booming ammo sales from ESPN, including an interesting Google Trends chart.

I think this writer has the right of it. There are a lot of people in control who have proven anti-gun for a long time and it’s reasonable to suspect that those stripes and spots are not going to change.

I’ve stocked up on pistol ammo, mostly ball because I practice a lot, but also JHP, hydra-shok, and a few packs of Glaser’s “safety slugs” ghastly expensive even for six rds.

I’ve had a hard time finding 2 ¾” 12 ga. 00-buck. It seems everything is going 3” magnum

[Haggis@wk]

From Binghamton:

One receptionist was killed, while the other, shot in the abdomen, pretended to be dead and then crawled under a desk and called 911, he said.

Police said they arrived within two minutes...

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.

I recall the same was said about the police inaction at Columbine.

What's the point of calling 911 if they arrive within two minutes and then sit outside for the rest of the day to "make sure it's safe"?

I will never live in a state that does not allow concealed carry.

[dai bread]

Our police did the same thing a while ago, though only for half an hour. It was long enough to make sure that the victim inside the building died, though. The police were roasted for it.

[Haggis@wk]

London’s Times

Chris Ayres of London's Times is puzzled by what seems to him a paradox:

If anything, the recent shootings have inspired more Americans to buy guns, recession or no recession.

In fact, all over the country they are stocking up on as many pistols, rifles, and shotguns as possible before the Obama Administration bans or taxes them.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the FBI carried out more than 4.2 million background checks on behalf of gundealers from November to January (a check is required with every sale), up 31 per cent on the same period in the previous year.

Interestingly, however, violent crime rates have at the same time been falling in Los Angeles, New York and other big American cities. The experts are at loss as to explain why this should be happening.

Hmm, could it be because the prospect of armed victims acts as a deterrent? This doesn't occur to Ayres, but he does offer a theory of his own:

People are buying so many guns that the criminals are simply running out of bullets. Or as one firing instructor explained to the Columbus Dispatch newspaper: "The ammo is being snapped up as soon as it comes in. People are in a frenzy. It's kind of like that run on Elmo dolls."

I think my explanation is more likely--but if Ayres's is true too, so much the better.

[Shapley]

Pelosi Calls For Gun Registration, Opposes Reform of D.C. Gun Laws

The gun law was ruled to be unconstitutional, but she wants a compromise. That would be a compromise between the Constitution and her goal.

You can't 'compromise' with those who seek to deprive you of your rights. The only possible outcome is that you will trade a small portion of those rights in exchange for a short delay before they come after the rest of them.

[piqaboo]

You can't 'compromise' with those who seek to deprive you of your rights. The only possible outcome is that you will trade a small portion of those rights in exchange for a short delay before they come after the rest of them.

Wow, Shap, you finally agree with me on something. How come its so clear to you now and it was so unclear when the Patriot Act went live, or when the previous President wanted your phone call info?

[Shapley]

Wow, Shap, you finally agree with me on something. How come its so clear to you now and it was so unclear when the Patriot Act went live, or when the previous President wanted your phone call info?

I've always believed that, but I've never seen what was so onerous about the Patriot Act. I've never believed, for example, that library card information is private, given that libraries are tax-supported (i.e. government) entities. Nor do I expect that my phone calls to overseas entities are protected. The Constitution pretty well ends at the border, as you know.

What is it in the Patriot Act that you find so troubling, and where does it tread upon Constitutionally expounded rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens?

[Shapley]

Wow, Shap, you finally agree with me on something. How come its so clear to you now and it was so unclear when the Patriot Act went live, or when the previous President wanted your phone call info?

Here's what the ACLU claims to be infringements on constitutional rights by the Patriot Act:

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What they claim the Patriot Act does:

1) Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. 
An investigation does not constitute an infringement. There is no indication that the FBI is prohibiting or restraining speech, merely ‘investigating' citizens whose speech possibly indicates a link to or support for terrorism or other activity.

2) Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
I'm not sure I understand this one. Is the prohibition on those being searched, or on the law-enforcement agencies doing the searching? I can understand the prohibition if it is imposed on law enforcement (which I think it is), but I think it is unenforceable if it is imposed on the subject of the order.

3) Creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.  
Since we don't deport American citizens, I assume this applies to non-citizens. Non-citizens do not have the same rights under the Constitution as do citizens. The rights, privileges, and immunities of non-citizens are matters of law and treaty, not constitutionally-protected rights.

4) Punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents. The USA PATRIOT Act permits visitors and immigrants to be found "inadmissible" for advocacy that the Secretary of State determines undermines our anti-terrorism efforts. This could conceivably include speeches, Letters to the Editor, or other comments about the government and its actions.
Again, this would appear to pertain to non-citizens. I suppose it could be interpreted to say that citizens who have left the country could be denied re-entry, but I would have to research the act further to determine if that is the wording. Were it so, I would expect it would fail a court challenge.

The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

1) Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.
Note the word "foreign".

2) Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Once again, I do not see anything in that wording that says a person has to be notified that they are subject to search, or that they have been searched. Only that the warrant must describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (OSHA, EPA, and various other agencies routinely violate this provision, BTW)

3) Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 
I'm not sure what records they are talking about. I recall the fuss over library cards, which I've already covered. Drivers' records and other government-issued information I believe to similarly be already in the hands of the government and thus not protected from inter-departmental transfer. The courts have ruled on the phone records issue, and the ACLU lost (I believe that pertained to international records, but I could mistaken. If so, then that ‘foreign' component figures in again.)

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
1) Allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law.
I believe this applies to non-citizens.

2) Creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.
Again, we do not deport American citizens, so I believe this must apply to non-citizens.

If you have evidence that I am incorrect in my understanding of this, I would be happy to see it.

source: http://www.aclu.org/PatriotActFlash/Pat ... eature.htm

[Shapley]

Wow, Shap, you finally agree with me on something. How come its so clear to you now and it was so unclear when the Patriot Act went live, or when the previous President wanted your phone call info?

Here's what the ACLU claims to be infringements on constitutional rights by the Patriot Act:

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What they claim the Patriot Act does:

1) Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. 
An investigation does not constitute an infringement. There is no indication that the FBI is prohibiting or restraining speech, merely ‘investigating' citizens whose speech possibly indicates a link to or support for terrorism or other activity. They are the 'Federal Bureau of Investigation'. Investigations are their business. Law enforcement agencies frequently investigate people to see whether or not they are guilty, usually due to some link or potential link to 'persons of interest'. Without investigations into potential guilt, there would be no 'probable cause' to proceed further towards indictment.

2) Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
I'm not sure I understand this one. Is the prohibition on those being searched, or on the law-enforcement agencies doing the searching? I can understand the prohibition if it is imposed on law enforcement (which I think it is), but I think it is unenforceable if it is imposed on the subject of the order.

3) Creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.  
Since we don't deport American citizens, I assume this applies to non-citizens. Non-citizens do not have the same rights under the Constitution as do citizens. The rights, privileges, and immunities of non-citizens are matters of law and treaty, not constitutionally-protected rights.

4) Punishes speech protected by the First Amendment, even of lawful permanent residents. The USA PATRIOT Act permits visitors and immigrants to be found "inadmissible" for advocacy that the Secretary of State determines undermines our anti-terrorism efforts. This could conceivably include speeches, Letters to the Editor, or other comments about the government and its actions.
Again, this would appear to pertain to non-citizens. I suppose it could be interpreted to say that citizens who have left the country could be denied re-entry, but I would have to research the act further to determine if that is the wording. Were it so, I would expect it would fail a court challenge.

The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

1) Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime.
Note the word "foreign".

2) Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Once again, I do not see anything in that wording that says a person has to be notified that they are subject to search, or that they have been searched. Only that the warrant must describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (OSHA, EPA, and various other agencies routinely violate this provision, BTW)

3) Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 
I'm not sure what records they are talking about. I recall the fuss over library cards, which I've already covered. Drivers' records and other government-issued information I believe to similarly be already in the hands of the government and thus not protected from inter-departmental transfer. The courts have ruled on the phone records issue, and the ACLU lost (I believe that pertained to international records, but I could mistaken. If so, then that ‘foreign' component figures in again.)

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
1) Allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law.
I believe this applies to non-citizens.

2) Creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations.
Again, we do not deport American citizens, so I believe this must apply to non-citizens.

If you have evidence that I am incorrect in my understanding of this, I would be happy to see it.

source: http://www.aclu.org/PatriotActFlash/Pat ... eature.htm

[Haggis@wk]

You can't 'compromise' with those who seek to deprive you of your rights. The only possible outcome is that you will trade a small portion of those rights in exchange for a short delay before they come after the rest of them.

Wow, Shap, you finally agree with me on something. How come its so clear to you now and it was so unclear when the Patriot Act went live, or when the previous President wanted your phone call info?

I aassume you missed this post. ferget the PATRIOT Act, Obama's gonna be able to read your email without a warrant, unless you are a terrorist of course, then you get due process.

HOPE AND CHANGE:

Civilian libertarians were apoplectic over former President George W. Bush’s “warrantless wiretap” program, which sought to monitor communications from terrorist networks overseas. So why are they not screaming bloody murder now that President Barack Obama appears slated to receive unprecedented power to monitor all Internet traffic without a warrant and to even shut the system down completely on the pretext of national security? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 - introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, and cosponsor Olympia Snowe, R-ME - bypasses all existing privacy laws and allows White House political operatives to tap into any online communication without a warrant, including banking, medical, and business records and personal e-mail conversations. This amounts to warrantless wiretaps on steroids, directed at U.S. citizens instead of foreign terrorists

.

Well, if it’s not aimed at terrorists, I guess it’s okay.

UPDATE: Related: EFF: In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ’s New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush’s.

“Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ’s radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama’s own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws. This isn’t change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.”

Actually, it’s pretty much the change I expected

[Shapley]

I didn't miss it. Like you, I expected nothing less. Despite the editor's comments to the contrary, we knew already that candidate Obama had little regard for those who opposed him, as witnessed by his unwillingness to condemn the hacking and subsequent release of Gov. Palin's e-mail correspondence.

You may recall the illegal phone tap that brought down Newt Gingrich. Democrats really don't have a problem with illegal surveillance as long as it is of benefit to them.

Obama's supporters were willing to turn a blind eye to the bullying tactics of his net-savvy supporters, since getting him elected was more important than minor issues such as civil rights. Of course, they expected him to come down heavy on such violations, once he was in office...