Now for something completely different

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In the office email, I received the following from two different "accounts" and two different "people." The domain does not exist, according to my search.


suppor073@riduscourt.com


Eviction Notification,
Please be advised that you are obliged to vacate the living space you occupy until March 1, 2014, 11 a.m.
If you do not vacate it in the specified terms, the court will have to assign the forcible eviction for April 7, 2014, 11 a.m.  If nobody is home we will not be responsible for safe keeping of your belongings. Besides, if you fail to comply with the requirements of the court bailiff  you will be fined for up to 200 minimum wage amounts with a subsequent doubling of the penalty amount  and can be made criminally or administratively liable.
The details of the circumstances that caused the judicial decision of eviction are attached herewith.
Court bailiff,
VINCENT Gomez

Each email also had an attachment, which I did not open and did not download. I suspect it has a virus. So, I forwarded to an account where I can open it online. It bounced back. Surprise surprise, virus positive.

Also, being me, I replied, "You don't have enough guns and ammo to evict me." Email reply bounced back, further proof of an attached virus.

I am amused. Unfortunately there are many people who will open the attachment and get their computer virus-infected.

Supreme Court crosshairs leveled again, sorta

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Another, sorta, gun rights case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

I say sorta, because it sort of is and sort of is not about gun rights.

According to everything I read (waiting on Nina Totenburg's piece for NPR),  Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought the gun and signed a federal document saying he was the intended owner. The next day, working through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder, he transferred to gun to an uncle. Uncle cleared by BATF to own the gun. Uncle paid for the gun.

The issue here is Abramski bought the pistol because he could get it cheaper than his uncle could. He always intended to pass it over to his uncle. Aye. There's the rub.


He signed the paper saying he intended to be the gun owner. Yes, for one day, but he also bought the gun fully intending to turn it over to his uncle.

Here's what the BATF form states: "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

I ain't a rocket scientist, but looks to me to be pretty clear here that Abramski is guilty of what BATF has charged him with, to wit: making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

That ain't about gun rights. That's about telling the truth. Or is it?

Here's where gun rights come in. I have two children, both of whom "own" guns. I bought the guns fully intending to make a gift of them to my children. As they are minors, they cannot legally own a firearm. Once they reach the age of majority, they can legally own firearms and the guns will be fully theirs as far as I'm concerned. My first real gun was gift from an uncle.

Here's where telling the truth, signing a piece of paper and gun rights merge.


Guns are gifts regularly. Should this be illegal? A spouse buys a gun for the other spouse. If both can legally own a gun, should this kind of gifting be illegal? Why? Why not?

Guns are heirlooms. While some people may plan to live forever, they won't. Guns are left to survivors in wills. Under the very strictest reading of the BATF regulation (I do not see it as a law because Congress did not specifically authorize that wording in the BATF forms), that can't happen. More in a moment.

Guns are used in raffles as well. Is this illegal? The raffle, possibly, depending on the individual state law and how the raffle winner takes possession of the gun.

Many, many people buy a gun and own it for years. Then, they sell it, gift it or trade it. Under the strictest possible interpretation of the BATF regulation, this is not allowed. Government can't even take it. See the Fourth Amendment.

Abramski bought the gun fully intending to pass it over to his uncle. He did so the next day. Lemme remind you BATF cleared BOTH MEN through the background check form to do this transfer. Ambramski also cleared this with three FFL holders. Sounds to me like he did due diligence. BATF did their job too. I reiterate for the dense out there - Background checks were done with each sale!

Someone buys a gun and intends to keep it. But what if they change their mind and sell it a week later? A year later? A decade later? Under strict BATF rules, this is not permissible. It couldn't even be sold back to an FFL holder!

Is there a time limit on how long that signature on the BATF form must be enforceable? If so, how long?

My point here is people buy a gun and sign paperwork saying they intend to own it. Unless they are buried, cremated, tossed over the side, etc with said firearm, someone else is gonna wind up with gun. If you make this illegal, then not even the government can take possession of the gun. See the Fourth Amendment for specifics.

For those who demand background checks, one more time - background checks were done on both men, both of whom passed. Both sales were conducted through an FFL holder. If you demand universal background checks, this sale passed with flying colors.

The central question must then be, can a person buy a gun and later sell, gift or trade it? BATF says no. BRB and the Constitution says yes.

Erratum, errors and mistakes

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Typos happen. Egad. 
Witness the errors that wind up in my blogs!

Johannes Gutenberg laid out the first page of type ever, printed it and set fire to the plate when he saw the typo in the page. And so started a tradition of typos. Being in journalism for a quarter century or so, I have certainly made plenty of typos.

We newspaper folks like to say we include typos in the paper so people who like to complain can enjoy the paper too.

Typos even happen in books considered so important that typos, well, they should not exist.

John Lee, former editor of the Apalachicola Times, once put it in perspective. A typo in a newspaper is a permanent error in the historical record of that community. He pointed to an old error in one of the Times. That error was not a typo, it was a flat mistake. The country of origin of a group of settlers were misidentified.

"Now, it's that way forever," he said.

Indeed it is. A correction appeared in the next edition of the Times, but the damage was done. The error has since been repeated, magnifying that mistake.

Reference books should be held to a higher standard than other printed material. A typo in a reference manual is a far more serious matter than a typo in a paperback romance novel.

I recently got the 104th Shooter's Bible as a Christmas gift. The book pretty much is a Bible to the gun enthusiast. Excited, I sat down to read it. Just a cursory glance, not a detailed reading at all, turned up more than a dozen errors. Some typos, some flat out stupid mistakes.

Upset, I fired off an angry letter to SkyHorse publishing, expecting my letter to be File 13'd. Imagine my surprise when 2 days later I got a personal reply from the editorial director at SkyHorse apologizing for the errors and offering to send me the 105th Shooter's Bible for free.

Jumped on that one!

Arrived yesterday. Took it home after the BOE meeting, I sat down to peruse. Once again, only a very cursory once-over. Not a detailed read at all. 15+ errors in the rifle section alone. Typos were in the minority. The majority were flat mistakes, errors of fact. In a reference and research publication like Shooter's Bible, this is not acceptable.

So, I fired off another missive to SkyHorse. Dunno if I will get a reply. Gonna read some more sections and send in more reports of typos.

UPDATE: I have heard back from the editorial director. He didn't get the second list of errata and asked I resend it.

More proof

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Proof of what you are certainly asking.

Proof that women and men are actually different, I reply.

Get a life, Baker, you say.

Have one, thankyouverymuchforasking. But today I come to you from the pages of Popular Science which is reporting on the Olympics. In a number of Winter Sports, women are injured a lot more than men.

Really.

In sports with women and men competitors, the figures show women come off worse for the wear, literally. In Snowboard Cross, a mind boggling 73 percent of the women recorded injuries v. 12 percent of the men.

Yeah. I'm still slack-jawed.

In the 19 sports studied, being the most popular sports, women injuries outpaced men injuries in 11 sports. The graph doesn't say if women compete in Curling and I'm not interested enough to see if women compete in curling. Ski Jumping allows women beginning this year so there's no data for other years. Nordic Combined also has an N/A so I guess women don't compete there either.

Men injuries significantly outpaced women only in Short Track Speed Skating.

Injuries were about even in Snowboard Half Pipe and Snowboard Slalom.

So of 17 sports both genders participate in, women pretty much rule the medical help after the event department.

I make no judgement calls, offer no opinions and make no claims. I merely find this interesting enough to share.

Where for art thou?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If yer looking for a hero, there are plenty out there. Look around. Someone is talking the time to make a difference. That's a hero. Some get paid to this. Some don't.

Heroes make the world a better place.

A post on FB this morning got me to thinking about heroes and the heroes I have met in my life.

All of them made a difference. Some did it in classic heroic style, risking their own life to save another. Some did it quietly, reaching out and turning a life around.

None of 'em did it for the credit, glory or fame that might come along with it. I say might, because plenty of them did their heroic deed and walked away before the spotlights showed up.

That FB post I saw made me think of someone who could be called a hero.

Mr. Rogers told us to get along. He told us to wonder. He told us to learn. He told us to be happy and look for good in everyone and everything.

He did say bad things would happen. He told us if leaned on our friends, they would help us get through it.

Lotta people will say Mr. Rogers was a hero. I don't.

Mr. Rogers does not fit the definition of a hero. He didn't have to.

Mr. Rogers inspired people to go out and save lives, make a difference and not worry about who got the credit.

Mr. Rogers created heros. That puts him a tier above heroes in my book.

Something for all means you won't like part of it

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"If the purpose of a newspaper is to inform, then it MUST provide opinions that differ from yours on subjects that do not necessarily interest you. If you wish to read only what you want about subjects you pick, that is what the internet is for." Melanie.

The newspaper I run has columnists, like most every print publication in the world. One of these is an elderly gent who grew up here and has a lifetime of highly entertaining and extremely interesting stories about growing up here.

In hopes of getting him to share these stories, I offered him a columnist spot. Instead, he's gone political. This is too easy to do as a columnist. Politics affects us all and hits us where it hurts. It is therefore natural to write about what affects us deeply. So be it.

Several readers have asked why this gent is writing a column. One put her thoughts in words as a letter to editor. In fact, she has two letters in this week's paper. She got a personal reply as well. The reply, which does not appear in the paper, included these statements:

His credentials are: He lives in Turner County and is willing to write a weekly column... We also had space for a columnist with the demise of Charles Perry.

To answer your unasked questions:
 
He has also attracted a number of regular readers who previously did not read the paper at all. Each week we strive to bring something read-worthy to everyone in Turner County. Mr. Brown is helping us achieve that. 

She replied, which is not in the paper, in part:

I am dismayed that to bolster sales the paper would include someone who quite obviously does not live up to any journalistic quality.  I would think that the paper would want to attract people to Turner County and would want to offer something of value to its readers. Apparently, you are trying to attract a certain group of readers at the expense of others. 

With so many options for the acquisition of news, it is an easy choice to find many enlightening and informative or amusing articles.  Time is a precious commodity and I for one will not waste mine reading such nonsense.

The more astute reader will note a glaring contradiction in the reply. "...would want to offer something of value to its readers. Apparently, you are trying to attract a certain group of readers at the expense of others."

We're supposed to attract readers and yet not attract readers? How?

As with the vast majority of people, she also misses the point of media outlets like newspapers (magazines, radio, TV, internet news sites and the like). What is the purpose of a newspaper (or other media outlet)? Most people will say "to inform people."

They are incorrect. However, suppose they are correct. If information is the purpose, then Mr. Brown is doing this. He brings a point of view which was lacking in the paper, a POV which is found in a significant part - a plurality POV in the main city - of this county.

In case yer wondering, the objective of a newspaper (and other media) is to inform. The purpose is a bit different. I leave you to wonder what that purpose is.

Where's the line?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

As expected, and hoped for, this post on FB generated some discussion. All those who posted were opposed to the wholesale slaughter of the wolves.

As best I know on my thread, I'm also the only person in the thread whose livelihood at one time depended on keep a herd of cattle living and well. I'm not the only person in the thread who grew up farming though.

I've never shot a wolf. Have shot at yotes and plan to continue to do so. I've also killed plenty of other pests like pigeons, crows, raccoons, squirrels, mice, rats, wild dogs, feral cats, rabbits, otters, beavers and the like.

As Rebel pointed out, removing predators from the environment does have consequences: "I am reminded of a time not long ago when one state in the midwest (Forget which one) felt like Coyotes were slaughtering cattle at an alarming rate (They weren't the numbers just like the actual numbers of cattle killed every year, were severely inflated to justify the killings) so they put a bounty for every coyote killed. It worked! Really well! Within a short time, the majority of Coyotes in the state had been wiped out. Everyone was happy till they realized that the coyotes had been keeping the rabbits and other destructive small animals in check. Suddenly the bunnies were multiplying like...well bunnies and farmers were screaming bloody murder."

At the same time, introducing predators into a prey-heavy environment means their populations will also explode. And when their prey has been reduced, they too turn to other food sources.
 
 But on Rebel's point about rabbits, we had problems with rabbits too. We took care of them at night with a spotlight, .22 and a shotgun.

Also, the State of Georgia this year reduced the number of doe days because of yote predation on deer. Yotes, BTW, are not actually native to Georgia. They were brought here by hunters, yes by hunters. The hunters wanted to run the yotes with yote-chasing dogs. As with too many introduced species (wild hogs), they bred and are now a problem.

Out west, the jury is still out on the effect of reintro'd wolves on wildlife.

As to my rabbit control, Rebel said, "Sorry Bro, your small scale actions don't work on a macro scale which was proven with the instance I mentioned above. When we upset the balance of nature as in the indiscriminate hunting and killing, things go wrong. Bro I am not talking about you killing a Coyote or Wolf when it wanders onto your farm and defending your property. I am talking about the slaughter of hundreds of wolves from the air or truck bed because they MIGHT one day wander onto someone's farm/ranch to kill a cow."

No argument.
But part of the decision to kill animals is a me v. them equation. Whose life is more important? Mine is a lot more important.

Mary Anderson, who's appeared in past blogs, offered this: "I totally agree that your life is worth more than a wolf or coyote's life. But you're not going to die if they kill some cattle. They will die if you shoot them. We are not in a kill or be killed situation these days."

That's the point. I shoot them. They die. I protect what's mine. I use the amount of force I see as necessary to do this. I also see her point. This made me think and I came up with this question.

At what point do you stop using lethal methods of pest management to protect your livelihood?

Another way of looking at this.

What level of depredation on your livelihood is acceptable before you resort to lethal controls?

Some less than lethal methods may work, depending on the pest. However, they are not as effective as lethal methods. After all, a dead pest cannot continue to attack.

Less than lethal is often far more expensive than lethal methods. Fences can be effective in some cases but require constant maintenance and repair. Relocation works, for a while. Florida has tried relocation with bears, but has now run out of places to put nuisance bears according to a game warden I know down there. Florida does not have a bear hunting season.

Less than lethal methods on four-legged pests and birds all too often involve spending taxpayer dollars. That's money which could be spent on education, road repair, social services and the like. Those who support relocation, contraceptive efforts and the like rarely put their own money where their mouth is.

On the other hand, hunters do pony up cash. Lethal control methods generate money for tax collecting authorities. Hunters buy licenses. Guns and ammo are subject to pretty hefty taxes. Hunters spend money on food and lodging in a community. When the hunters leave, they take the pests with them. Sometimes meat is donated to groups that feed people in need. Hunters also lease land to hunt on.

MA, again, "I don't know what the right answer is, Ben. I do know that wiping a species out is not it. And humans are just as natural as wolves and have a right to be here, too, but there has to be a balance."

I'm all about for, with, on the side of, in favor of, etc balance. But I'm also in favor protecting what's mine. If things have to be out of balance, I'm gonna work to make sure it is imbalanced in my favor.

As for hunting wolves, I'm in favor of it. Wolf populations in some places are now self-sustaining and can support hunting. I'd hunt wolf if given the chance under these circumstances. If a rancher has wolves killing his livestock, I'd support killing those wolves.

Droppin' the big hammer

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This morning, Doc sends me this link. I immediately knew this was not news.

The idea that a citizen may respond with force to law enforcement is found Constitutional by SCOTUS in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. John Bad Elk's case, decided in 1900, clearly says citizens can use lethal force to resist an unlawful arrest. The second link is from an even older case on the same thing.

The problem: what is an unlawful arrest?

On the surface, that's pretty simple you'd think. Here's a few ideas for false arrest:

• Using illegally obtained information and evidence for the basis for the arrest.

• Making an arrest where no offense has taken place.

• Arresting the wrong person.

There's probably more. I'm neither a lawyer, judge nor cop. I can only report what I've seen the courts, lawyers and law enforcement do over and say over the years I've been a reporter.


So what about resisting a false arrest? CopBlock.org looks set four categories for resisting an arrest.

1) The arrest is lawful and no excessive force is used by the officer; (worst-case scenario for a defense)

2) The arrest is lawful and excessive force is used by the officer.
 
3) The arrest is unlawful and no excessive force is used by the officer;
 
4) The arrest is unlawful and excessive force is used by officer. (best-case scenario for a defense)
 
If you know anything about the legal system you know it is nowhere near this simple.

What is an unlawful arrest? Here's yer monkey wrench: "Remarkably, the Supreme Court has never defined the word "arrest" with any precision and decisions of the lower courts are in conflict as to its meaning," writes

Thomas K. Clancy

at the University of Mississippi School of Law.


SCOTUS, in a 2004 unanimous decision, had more to say about making an arrest. This case presents the question whether an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not "closely related" to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest.

SCOTUS said the officer in this case made a legit arrest. So if an officer finds you doing something illegal in the process of trying to arrest you falsely, you can be arrested legitimately.


But what happens if a person resists arrest? There are such charges as fleeing or attempting to elude, disorderly conduct, assault on a law enforcement officer and probably some others. These charges come about after an officer attempts to make an arrest.

Going back to the CopBlock definitions, we find yet another monkey wrench. Who defines "excessive force?" In the law enforcement use of force class I attended a while back, the instructor said eventually a judge or jury will decide whether if it was necessary or unnecessary force. In other words, it's a subjective thing.

If you think you are resisting an unlawful arrest, even to the point of using lethal force, bear in mind you're walking on some seriously un-level and shaky ground. You're also going to be dealing with people who are trained to be cool under pressure and return fire.

Law enforcement has a tough job. They see people at their absolute worst. They have to deal with people who'd sometimes rather die than be arrested. They have to deal with people who demand help this minute and tell officers to leave the next minute.

It's not an easy job and it's not an easy way to making a living. And just like with any other profession out there, there are good ones and bad ones. Fortunately most are good. Most are in the job because they want to make a difference.

In ALL my personal dealings with LE I have found every officer to be polite and helpful and respectful, even when I was the one in the wrong (such as the no seat belt ticket I got in a neighboring county a while back.) I have never argued with them. I stated my case, once, and kept my mouth shut. In that I erred. I should have not said anything.

Of course I was also polite and respectful. Officers are trained to match your level of attitude.

I am proud to count a number of current and former law enforcement officials among my friends. I support LE and what they try to do.  I also support the right of people to resist a false arrest.