Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

Alternately titled “leftists saying what they really want, but also using it as clickbait“:

The president zoomed in on exactly the right point Tuesday: What about the rights of those killed by gun violence to live free from terror?

There is no right to freedom from fear.  It also could never be achieved.  Some people fear the dark.  Some fear light.  Some fear clowns.  Some fear bees.  Some fear the unknowable, unfeeling empty vastness of space.

As a technical point, those killed aren’t alive, so they can’t live free from anything.

President Obama said a lot about guns in his teary press conference Tuesday, but the one thing that he is not saying, despite all the howling from the right, is that he intends to take away Americans’ guns. Yet equally significant is the realization that individual citizens are unwilling to free themselves of the destructive weapons that are wreaking havoc on our society. Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms, and they are unable to see how these individualistic desires undermine the essential fabric of a democracy.

All freedoms are individual freedoms.  If individuals within a group have no freedom, there is no freedom.  Restricting individual rights to free speech also means restricting a “collective” right to free speech by removing voices that the government doesn’t like.

Much like the bumper sticker slogan, my guns must not be working right, because they haven’t wreaked any havoc.

This democratic fabric includes the Second Amendment that has been contorted, misinterpreted, and applied in a way that destroys its intended meaning and threatens the safety and stability of our nation.

Here comes the usual “the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says” argument.  The only people contorting it and misinterpreting it are those trying to destroy its meaning in order to disarm the populace.

And as the president pointed out on Tuesday, this grotesque emphasis on the Second Amendment impairs other Americans’ ability to freely exercise many of the other 26 amendments.

Try exercising your Third Amendment rights without any way to resist.

Come to think of it, your First is easily extinguished, as we’ve seen on college campuses where a mob can simply push a reporter out of public spaces.  Your Fourth is pretty hard to defend if you can’t protect your own home.  Your Fifth is a lot easier to have ignored if the police and prosecutors simply threaten you.

As President Obama forges a lone path toward gun regulation, we must wonder how we as a society have arrived to a point where “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” has morphed into allowing individual citizens to possess firearms for their individual protection with little to no concern about the security of a free state.

There’s not much security to a free state when only the government and its agents have guns.  In fact, that’s not a free state at all, that’s a tyranny.  That’s exactly what the founders were discussing.

And then there’s this asshole comment:

It is well documented that gun sales and gun-related deaths have increased since Obama came into office, but the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), which opened the floodgates and redefined the Second Amendment, rarely receives mention.

Murder is down.  In 2007 there were 17,128 murders.  In 2013 there were 14,196.  Numbers have been on the decline for decades.

Murders with firearms are down.  2010 saw 8,874 murders with firearms.  2014 saw 8,124.

DC v Heller didn’t change the Second Amendment functionally for most of the nation.  Many state constitutions already cover the right to keep & bear arms even more specifically as a personal right of self-defense.  There were no “floodgates” to open.  Places that have historically been anti-gun are still throwing up barricades to exercise of rights that are still being fought against in court.

The court’s decision in the case went against 70 years of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment that stated in United States v. Miller that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Brown v Board of Education went against nearly 60 years of legal interpretations justifying segregation, too.  It also corrected a historic wrong.

US v Miller was a bullshit ruling.  The arms-infringing National Firearms Act of 1934 which Miller was challenging says that a shotgun with a barrel under 18″ requires a $200 tax stamp to own, buy, or sell.  $200 in 1934 amounts to $3500 today.  It’s a financial barrier to firearms ownership and exercising of rights.  It’s a poll tax for guns.

The court magically ruled that a shotgun under 18″ barrel length isn’t suited to any kind of militia use or any other use (despite the fact that agencies from the FBI to USBP to IRS all use 14″ barreled shotguns today in manners that are entirely consistent with the uses the judges said they couldn’t be used).

Miller was a bank robber who argued against laws that would’ve sent him to jail not so much for bank robbery, but for effectively owning a piece of pipe that was less than 18″.  The court decision was made in such a way that Miller could never travel to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, and Miller was killed before the ruling came down and he could’ve effectively challenged it.

It’d be like if the Miranda decision were never made because Miranda were killed before being able to make the challenge to SCOTUS.  Mind you, Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist who was convicted both on initial trial and on retrial after SCOTUS review – it’s said good court decisions can often come from bad people.

In Heller and then in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court in a pair of 5-4 decisions determined that federal, state, and local governments could not create restrictions that could prevent an individual the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense. The intent of the Second Amendment had shifted from allowing citizens to own firearms so that they could band together in an organized and regulated militia run by either local, state, or federal governments to allowing citizens to own guns for their own purposes so long as they fell under the individual’s definition of self-defense.

Let’s reference Blackstone, which is part of where the Second Amendment came from:

a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression

And that’s just pulling a quote from wikipedia.  The founders knew that restrictions turned into strangulation of rights, and that’s why they eliminated that part – and stuck simply to a codified recognition of protecting the tools of self-preservation.

To borrow from Tom Gresham:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”  Now, ask if this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people?

Clickbaity McDailyBeast goes on:

Not surprisingly, countless Americans purchased more and more firearms to protect themselves from the “inevitable” moment when the government or “Obama” was going to forcefully take their guns away. Not surprisingly a byproduct of this new interpretation of the Second Amendment has been a rise in unregulated militias or American terrorist groups who challenge the authority of federal, state, and local governments.  Ammon Bundy and his posse of men who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom who just this week forcefully took over a federal building in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon are just one such iteration of this emboldened unregulated militia movement in America.

Actually, this “new interpretation” is pretty much what most state constitutions have always said.

“American terrorist groups”?  I think the Bundys are basically the same kind of people the president would support if they were a union blocking a factory.  The Bundys just want to take over their agricultural means of production – which means public land they don’t feel like paying for.  No real difference from the union members who try to take over industrial means of production except that the unions try to take from private citizens they view as class enemies while the Bundys want to take over from a government they view as a class enemy.

Frankly I find both of them reprehensible, but neither are very good terrorists.  Unions haven’t been effective terrorists since the Wobblies, and ranchers haven’t made effective terrorists since the Johnson County War.

The Oath Keepers, formed in 2009, are one of the largest unregulated militia movements in the nation, and regularly you can find them injecting themselves unnecessarily into conflicts. In Ferguson, Missouri following the death of Michael Brown, Oath Keepers arrived carrying semi-automatic riffles so that they could prevent looters from destroying property, and many of them said that they saw nothing wrong with taking the life of a looter to prevent the destruction of property. They also advocated that Ferguson residents obtain firearms so that they could protect themselves from the police.

So they wanted to protect people who lived there from armed mobs that were burning their homes and businesses?  And they wanted Ferguson residents to protect themselves against police they viewed as threats to the community?

I tend to view the Oathkeepers as a bit silly, but reading it from this Daily Beast goofball, he makes them seem positively balanced.

Also, I don’t think trying to provide stability for a community, however misguided, makes them terrorists.

Instability, terror, and death are the inevitable outcomes of a heavily armed citizenry, yet in the 1846 case Nunn v. State of Georgia, an integral case that the Supreme Court used in the Heller decision, the state of Georgia—my home state—argued that arming citizens and allowing them to openly carry firearms created a safer environment. And the referencing of this decision only continues the Supreme Court’s idyllic reimagining of America’s Southern states.

Lolworthy.

Georgia in 1846 was a slave holding state where African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person and were not allowed the right to vote.

The 3/5ths compromise was so that states that weren’t slave states wouldn’t be outnumbered in congress by slave states.  Slave states wanted black slaves counted as whole persons for purposes of distribution of representatives.

Firearms at this time were regularly used to keep blacks in line and sustain the South’s racist, oppressive society.

Dumb.  Gun control was used to keep blacks in line – The Racist Roots of Gun Control is a good read that explains it.  If only the powers that be in racist slave states had firearms, they would’ve had them to “keep blacks in line” as well – and if they needed more arms, they would’ve expanded the authority of the state.

Short version of that section is basically he thinks that guns=racism.

But far from rejecting that old logic, we’ve embraced it, and the application of the South’s antithetical principles have brought instability, danger, and a disregard for human life to rest of the United States. Armed and dangerous and unregulated militias are on the rise, in addition to the numerous lone-wolf attacks that befall schools, offices, shopping centers, and public spaces at a disturbing frequency.

Except they haven’t brought violence.  Those “lone wolf” attacks aren’t from “unregulated militias”, they’re from individual lunatics who can’t be stopped with laws and who are frequently jihadis – adherents to a terrorist ideology.

Right now the Second Amendment is being applied in a way that takes away the rights of thousands of Americans each year, and the president must address this crisis to ensure the safety and stability of not just the American citizens who are threatened by gun violence, but also the ideals and institutions that govern our society that are being threatened by the archaic notions of stability from a racist and oppressive society and the unregulated militias of today that openly advocate armed conflict against the government.

Nice try playing the race card.  Gun control was used against the black man to control the black man.  Take the guns from the free men of all colors today and you just put your faith in government, which between 2000 and 2008 I’m sure this clown would’ve opposed as Bu$Hitler would’ve been his boogeyman of the day.  Take all the guns from the free men of Georgia in 1846 and you have a slave state controlled by a government that would expand its authority until blacks (and poor whites) were controlled anyway.

Obama is not going to take away America’s guns. I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with gun ownership, except that using force to attempt to disarm people of their firearms might inevitably lead to more violence and bloodshed.

Obama is not going to take away America’s presses.  I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with the written word, except that using force to attempt to silence people might inevitably lead to… he’s gonna disarm them first, right?  Well then no problems!  On to our glorious utopian future!

Gun owners should want to regulate and reduce their gun usage for the greater good, but our society is too consumed with the myopia of employing lethal force to resolve minor disputes that it cannot imagine an environment without widespread gun usage. And countless Americans are unable to see that their gun usage actually jeopardizes the very freedoms and liberties they have chosen to fight for and defend via the barrel of a gun.

Ah, the “greater good”.  He should’ve said “for the children” instead.  Gets more feels that way.

Lethal force isn’t used for minor disputes, unless you consider human life something of minor consequence… of course being a big control freak statist… he probably does.

Widespread gun ownership, bearing arms, and possession of arms, does not necessarily mean usage.  I burn down targets at the range, but I have yet to use a firearm in to resolve any dispute inside the US.

Actually, declining gun usage and ownership, and trusting the state with arms and force is what jeopardizes freedoms and liberties, because no man can legally take another man’s rights away – but a government can, and governments do.

On to stupidity part 2 “America should regulate bullets“:

When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?

Specifically, why not bullets?

Although it may seem unbelieveable, at one point I was a child.  I don’t remember ever looking at walls and thinking “I should start chewing on paint chips”.  When I was at an age younger than that, my family lived in and worked in an environment that would be considered dangerous for a child today… but my parents kept me from eating screws, nails, and construction debris.  Congress wasn’t needed to protect me as a child.  Nor was it needed before 1972 when it was created.

As to why not bullets?  Because ammunition is a key component of arms.  And because you’re trying to come up with a backdoor regulation scheme to go after something you don’t personally like.

Why not have some chaste religious zealot decide that the risk of STDs that condoms don’t actually prevent means the CPSC can regulate condoms in order to cut down on sex that the zealot doesn’t like?

This idea isn’t new. In 1974, the CPSC’s first chairman made clear his belief that the agency could probably regulate ammunition, and a court agreed — whereupon a frightened Congress passed laws making it impossible even to try. Now is the time for the president to begin pushing to correct that mistake.

I can’t help but hear that last line said like Dick Jones in Robocop saying: “I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake… now it’s time to erase that mistake.

The slavering regulatrix can’t even begin to fathom that there are people who don’t regard her totalitarian state as something desirable, nor that their representatives would seek to prevent tyranny which she demands through any means possible.

How can we do more when the National Rifle Association has persuaded Congress to put roadblocks in front of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research into gun deaths? When more than half of Americans oppose tighter gun control even after a year of such bloodshed?

Support for gun control has been falling dramatically.  People know being disarmed doesn’t make them safe, and doesn’t make anyone safe.

The NRA opposes CDC “research” because it’s “research” that will be pushed into the kind of conclusion that statists desire.  Stats will be massaged until they get the “right” answer demanding more regulation, more control, and less freedoms.

James Holmes bought more than 4,000 rounds online before his 2012 rampage in a Colorado movie theater. Twenty years ago, when purchases were offline, it would have been tough to spot someone like that. Today it would be easy.

Why should my old agency be the one to do the regulating?

No one should be doing regulating.

James Holmes is a wonderful example of how there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.  Holmes was working on neuroscience/neurosurgery before he snapped.  He was being trusted enough to become the kind of person you call when you need someone to stab around in your brain.  On paper, he looked like a fine upstanding young man.  He also spent time making IEDs and rigging his apartment to explode.  Take away ammo and he’d use something like a pressure cooker bomb and fireworks.  Or he might just kill patients for decades on the operating table.  It’s not the tool he uses to cause the harm, it’s the person doing the harm.

When someone who may be dangerous is prevented from buying ammunition, any gun he has hidden becomes like a car without gas: a useless hunk of metal.

Yeah, and he can go buy a few gallons of gasoline and he has a firebomb ready to go.  He can also start playing with chemicals and explosives like were used at the worst mass killing at a US school in history – the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

There are many ways to move ahead. We could license ammunition purchases like drivers, ban online purchases and mandate background checks for buyers. But it would be pointless for me to outline the precise steps that should be taken up front — except for the first one: ending Congress’s disgraceful attempt to chill research. Funding to study regulating ammunition should begin now.

Congress was wise enough to see through that.  It’s not “research”, it’s funded justifications for tyranny at the expense of a constitutionally recognized right.  The author of this anti-freedom screed outright says she wants more restrictions on a right, and she wants to backdoor it with a bureaucracy that’s largely unaccountable, and she already has her answers.  If the CDC came out with the same conclusions the FBI shows in crime stats (referenced above) that gun crimes are down, and that they found John Lott’s study (More Guns, Less Crime) is the case, she’d demand more research until such time as her answer is reached.

This would be like Congress funding research for the CDC to analyze the effects of unpleasant speech on the public in order to go after the First Amendment, or funding research into the the effects of lethal chemicals and execution methods to undermine the Eighth Amendment.

Times and cultures change.

Tyrants never do.

Basically Drudge’s big stories of the day, but today the FCC chair refused to testify before congress about net neutrality, The Hill looks at the new arbitrary ability for the FCC to impose internet regulations and asks if it’s outright lawless, and the lefty “Electronic Frontier Foundation” suddenly realizes that big government might not be the best thing to have on an internet that’s supposed to be free.

There are several problems with this approach.  First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

A leftist push for more control really might mean cronyism for their politically aligned friends?  Naw… you don’t say.

The internet will grind to stagnating European halt.

In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet. …

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote. …

“Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”

I’d file this entirely under the part of the cycle of the anointed being wrong where Thomas Sowell says “the critics’ concerns are dismissed”… which comes right before the “solution” is implemented and causes the exact problems the critics fortold.

There is always the inexorable push by leftists for more controlIt’s what they do.  It’s all they do.

This is a long march for them, and they will always be working to take your rights away.  That’s their focus, their reason, their essence, and their firm belief.  Any means necessary, any backdoor way, any subtle move, any overt move.

From Katie Pavlich over at Townhall:

Last week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, through the power of Dodd-Frank, passed a rule giving the agency unprecedented power to shut down businesses, no matter what the reason, at any time it wishes through a cease-and-desist order. Further, the rule puts businesses at the mercy of the CFPB and they cannot go back into operation until government approval or a court ruling is made over an issue. Subsequently because bureaucratic decisions and court rulings take a substantial amount of time to happen, businesses cannot survive during those waiting periods.  Here are the details:

In a notice published in today’s Federal Register, the CFPB has announced that it has adopted its interim final rule on temporary cease-and-desist orders (C&Ds) without change. The final rule takes effect on July 18, 2014.

The CFPB is authorized to issue temporary C&Ds under Section 1053(c) of Dodd-Frank. That provision authorizes a temporary C&D as an adjunct to a cease-and-desist proceeding brought under Section 1053 against a covered person or service provider. A temporary C&D is effective immediately upon service and remains in effect unless modified or terminated administratively by the CFPB or set aside on judicial review.

So they can shut any business down at any time.

regulations grow freedom dies

1053(c) of Dodd-Frank is almost incomprehensible.

(c) SPECIAL RULES FOR TEMPORARY CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the Bureau determines that the violation specified in the notice of charges served upon a person, including a service provider, pursuant to subsection (b), or the continuation thereof, is likely to cause the person to be insolvent or otherwise prejudice the interests of consumers before the completion of the proceedings conducted pursuant to subsection (b), the Bureau may issue a temporary order requiring the person to cease and desist from any such violation or practice and to take affirmative action to prevent or remedy such insolvency or other condition pending completion of such proceedings.

Such order may include any requirement authorized under this subtitle. Such order shall become effective upon service upon the person and, unless set aside, limited, or suspended by a court in proceedings authorized by paragraph (2), shall remain effective and enforceable pending the completion of the administrative proceedings pursuant to such notice and until such time as the Bureau shall dismiss the charges specified in such notice, or if a cease-and-desist order is issued against the person, until the effective date of such order.

There’s more, but it’s the same kind of legalese gibberish that basically means if there’s something questioned in a terms of service agreement or contract, a business can be shut down.

Ms. Pavlich points out some more things going on with this:

The new rule comes on the heals of revelations the Department of Justice has been smothering firearms dealerships and other “high risk” entities out of business by “choking” banks and stripping funding through Operation Choke Point.

Consumer groups are pushing back against the rule and issuing a warnings to businesses everywhere about what the rule means for them. The United States Consumer Coalition in particular is sounding the alarm:

“This unprecedented rule created by the CFPB grants the agency unilateral authority to literally shut down any business overnight. It is a doubling down of Operation Choke Point (OCP), the Administration’s program to target lawful industries by intimidating banks from doing business with them. This rule allows the CFPB to immediately issue a cease-and-desist order, which terminates all business practices — and a hearing doesn’t have to be granted for 10 days, effectively shutting down businesses for at least 10 days. This is a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ tactic of the Administration that goes against every historical notion of justice under the law in America.”

A quick primer on Operation Choke Point:

The Obama administration, after failing to get gun control passed on Capitol Hill, has resorted to using its executive power to try to put some in the firearms industry out of business, House Republican investigators say.

The assertion is included in a report recently released by California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Citing internal Justice Department documents, the committee concluded that the administration used a program known as Operation Choke Point to target legal companies that it finds “objectionable.”

The program was started in 2013 to protect consumers by “choking” alleged fraudsters’ access to the banking system. The Justice Department essentially forces banks and third-party payment processors to stop accepting payments from companies that are considered “high risk” and are supposedly violating federal law.

However, the documents released by Issa’s committee show the federal government lumped the firearms industry in with other “high-risk” businesses including those dealing with pornography, drug paraphernalia, escort services, racist materials, Ponzi schemes and online gambling.

So basically the Orwellian-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is going to have the ability to shut down any business, any time, and we’ve already seen this administration using financial schemes to target businesses they find politically undesirable.

But what’s the best part about the Consumer Financial Protection People’s Defense Bureau?  They can’t be stopped – they’re funded by the Federal Reserve, and thus can’t even be reigned in by congress defunding them.

Republicans and Democrats on Captiol Hill continue to fight over whether the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be subject to the congressional appropriations process — that is, whether Congress should directly control how much money the fledgling agency can spend each year.

In the meantime, the CFPB funds itself through a bank account at the New York Fed.

Under the Dodd-Frank law, the CFPB gets its money from transfers from the Federal Reserve System, up to specific caps set by the law. The Fed can’t turn down requests under that cap.

The caps are fixed percentages of the Fed’s operating expenses, which works out to the following:
–10% of Fed operating expenses in fiscal 2011 or $498 million
–11% of Fed operating expenses in fiscal 2012 or $547.8 million
–12% in fiscal 2013 or $597.6 million
–12% each fiscal year thereafter, subject to annual adjustments for inflation

So they’re a completely unaccountable, self-funded government group who’ve just made up the rule that they can shut down any business at any time, giving themselves virtually unlimited power to unilaterally destroy any company or enterprise.

Longer version here.  Remember, this is the guy who actively said he will bankrupt the coal industry.

Now, here comes a mandate for 30% cuts in emissions, which are already low.

From WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency will propose a draft rule on Monday seeking a 30% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, according to two people who have been briefed on the rule, setting in motion the main piece of President Barack Obama‘s climate-change agenda.

The rule, scheduled to be completed one year from now, will give flexibility to the states, which must implement the rules and submit compliance plans to EPA by June 2016. States can decide how to meet the reductions, including joining or creating new cap-and-trade programs, deploying more renewable energy or ramping up energy-efficiency technologies.

Either buy carbon indulgencies from Global Warming High Priest Al Gore or throw money at Solyndra or go out of business.  And soon the American people will be experiencing brownouts and blackouts and power loss that will be blamed on the greedy power companies.  There will always be kulaks or counterrevolutionaries or people who are not significantly revolutionary enough who are the cause of misery, never the actual tyrants who engineered it.

The Obama administration is already claiming credit for everything that was done by Bush 10 years ago and that is coming to fruition now.  The Chamber of Commerce (though reprehensible on amnesty) has already come forth warning that the new regulations will cost upwards of $50,000,000,000 for energy producers.  Watching the second Obama video above, he outright states “the companies will pass those costs onto their customers” – you will foot the bill for this.  The EPA is already setting up a legal bulwark to prevent anyone from assailing their new regulations – they’re spending your money to raise your power rates and cut your access to energy and now they’re spending your money on their lawyers to crush anyone who would oppose them.

As usual.

regulations grow freedom dies

HotAir has this post today on the Armatix iP1, a pistol which is wholly unsuitable for defense against anything other than paraplegic squirrels.  It’s another twist on the idea of the so-called “smart gun” that only allows a user wearing an RFID-chipped watch to fire it.  I’ll elaborate on its uselessness later, but first, I’d like to discuss the magazine disconnect.

The magazine disconnect is a bug feature, primarily in handguns, that disables a firearm when the magazine is removed.  It will also disable a firearm if the magazine isn’t properly seated and the mechanism isn’t engaged.

The supposed benefit to this is that if a police officer is fighting a suspect, the officer can take the magazine out, rendering the gun inert.  That it renders the officer’s gun inert for the officer is never considered… or that simply jarring the magazine slightly loose will also disable it is never considered.  For the citizen, the supposed benefit is… for the children or something.

For a citizen carrying a pistol for self-defense (or for law enforcement), there is a need for a firearm to work the first time every time.  And it simply adds one more thing to go wrong that wasn’t there before.  If a magazine doesn’t seat right, rather than have one round fired and the need for immediate action to “tap rack bang” and get the gun working, it simply means there is no first shot.  That lack of a first shot means the immediate threat that’s caused the defender to draw is going to overwhelm them.

I can’t think of any law enforcement agencies that carry pistols with a magazine disconnect, though examples where the magazine disconnect is rejected are quite frequent.

It makes a tactical reload more dangerous, because rather than changing one magazine for another with a pistol still carrying one round… it means reloads are changing one magazine for another with a pistol that’s been turned into a brick for the time being.  And if you don’t seat that reload properly, your pistol is still bricked.  If for whatever reason your pistol magazine well (the place the magazine goes, for you non-gun folks), has become dirty, whether because you’re rolling across the ground of a Christmas tree lot or if it’s just filled with pocket lint, you’ve rendered your gun inert.

Magazine disconnects objectively make guns more dangerous by making them less reliable.  The push for “smart” guns is like saying knives should be made safer by making them dull – folks who work with knives know it’s a dull knife that’s unreliable that causes injuries.  To the uninformed or to a vapid idiot, a dull knife seems less dangerous.  Magazine disconnects also make guns more dangerous by allowing casual users to rely on the disconnect, thinking that a firearm with no magazine is “safe” without checking the actual chamber.

Magazine disconnects, however, are not called magazine disconnects by the state of California.  They’re called magazine “safeties” and are mandatory.

Which brings us to the Armatix iP1, as introduced in the Washington Post as the “iPhone of guns”.

One of California’s largest firearm stores recently added a peculiar new gun to its shelves. It requires an accessory: a black waterproof watch.

The watch’s primary purpose is not to provide accurate time, though it does. The watch makes the gun think. Electronic chips inside the gun and the watch communicate with each other. If the watch is within close reach of the gun, a light on the grip turns green. Fire away. No watch means no green light. The gun becomes a paperweight.

A dream of gun-control advocates for decades, the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun. Its introduction is seen as a landmark in efforts to reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. Proponents compare smart guns to automobile air bags — a transformative add-on that gun owners will demand. But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.

A bug has been added in the name of “safety”.  Magazine not in?  Gun won’t work.  Not wearing your magic watch?  Gun won’t work.  Magic watch battery dies?  Gun won’t work.

Criminal identifies your magic watch arm and knows how to disarm you?  Gun can’t help.  Don’t wear your magic watch because it looks stupid and has to go on the wrong wrist?  Gun won’t work.  Get hassled by police who see you with a gun-watch?  Gun brings you problems.

If your kid can find your magic gun, he can also find the magic watch.  If you’re going to off yourself with your own gun, you can find your magic watch.

James Mitchell, the “extremely pro-gun” owner of the Oak Tree Gun Club, north of Los Angeles, isn’t one of the skeptics. His club’s firearms shop is the only outlet in the country selling the iP1. “It could revolutionize the gun industry,” Mitchell declared.

When someone has to go out and say they’re “extremely pro-gun”, and yet they’re introducing a product that makes lawmakers salivate at rights they can now legislate away… I suspect this guy’s another Jeremy Alcede.

Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year, and at the federal level, Rep. John F. Tierney(D-Mass.) also has introduced a mandate.

Looks like James Mitchell’s “extremely pro-gun” stance has just led to New Jersey laws activating in 2017 that will ban all gun sales except for a glitchy .22 pistol.

Smart guns, advocates say, will have huge appeal to buyers. “If you have two cars, and one has an air bag and one doesn’t, are you going to buy the one without the air bag?” said Belinda Padilla, president of Armatix’s U.S. operation. “It’s your choice, but why would you do that?”

Belinda Padilla is an opportunist and clearly an idiot when it comes to both gun rights and self-defense, but she sure knows how to be a crony and make something that will appeal to government, who will mandate her product.

A better example would be “if you have two cars, and one has a starter that requires a digital signature from the powered-RFID key where if the battery goes dead in the key, you’ll be left stranded and unable to drive; and you have a car that runs on a mechanical key, are you going to drive the one with the glitchy system that will fail you and leave you stranded?”

I’ve only been stranded by a mechanical key… never.  But I’ve been stranded a handful of times due to dying batteries on RFID-only keys.  If I’d needed the car to start right then and there… or even needed the doors to unlock right then and there, I’d’ve been screwed.

It’s one thing to have something go wrong with a machine, it’s another to have failure specifically engineered into the machine.

Teret and others point to now-commonplace safety enhancements that Americans were skeptical about at first: air bags and smoke detectors. “They thought the air bag would kill them,” said Teret, who did early work on air-bag technology. “They thought it would shove them out the back window, that it would explode. It takes awhile to dispel these mythologies.”

Comparing it to airbags actually may be more accurate than they think.  Airbags deploy violently and injure people in minor accidents, and occasionally deploy because of damaged or faultly sensors, or due to jarring on rough roads.  Airbags require holding steering wheels differently in order to avoid being crippled by them.  I’ve personally been injured by an airbag, and have had a handful of coworkers injured by airbags that deployed spontaneously due to any number of electrical glitches or faulty sensors.

For people who drive on rough roads in rural areas, an airbag can be a huge liability, because cars may not know the difference between a bounce on a rock or an impact.

And also, Airbags Kill More Kids Than School Shootings:

Life with airbags has turned out very differently from the one promised by Joan Claybrook back in 1977. That’s when she told Congress that those friendly balloons in every car would pillow away 40 percent of crash deaths each year.

Last year, Dwight Childs, 29, of Broadview Heights, Ohio, screwed up. He ran a red light, resulting in a 10-mph crash. It was exactly the sort of mistake airbag supporters have always said, “you shouldn’t have to die for.” Childs’s two-month-old son, Jacob Andrew, strapped into a rear-facing child seat on the passenger side of a 1997 Ford F-150 pickup, was killed by the airbag, and Childs himself was charged with vehicular homicide.

The man’s crime? He didn’t switch off the airbag.

Judge Kenneth Spanagel piled on the punishment: 180 days in jail, suspended except for two cruel and unusual days; Childs must check in to jail on Jacob’s first birthday and on the first anniversary of the crash. Childs was ordered to make radio and TV ads about airbag safety for the Ohio Department of Public Safety. He was also placed on probation for three years, his license was suspended, and he had to pay $500 in fines and court costs.

I’ll boil it down for you. First, government forced this man to buy airbags, because bureaucrats in Washington know better than he what’s needed for his well-being. Then, when he failed to deactivate the safety feature he was compelled to buy, it sent him to jail. Airbags have turned America’s sense of justice on its head.

That government force is a big part of this story.  From the Silicon Valley elitist do-gooder who came up with the prize for bringing a “smart” gun to the market:

Conway, out in Silicon Valley, said: “You let the free enterprise system take over. Just like everyone opted into the iPhone and abandoned the flip phone and BlackBerry, consumers will vote with their feet. We want gun owners to feel like they are dinosaurs if they aren’t using smart guns.”

Except New Jersey already passed a mandate.  Other legislatures will follow.  Gun ban groups have been pushing this nonsense for years, as more guns can be banned because they can point to the bug-as-a-feature Armatix as a “success” that means everything else can go away.  The same has already been done with magazine disconnects.  The same has also been done with loaded-chamber indicators (which don’t interfere with function as much, but do make for a false sense of security, and do establish new banning criteria on all guns that don’t have them).

The objective is the same as the microstamping scam – ban guns by mandating technology that’s onerous, dangerous, and eliminates most of the market.

The same style of government force objectives are pushed in the automotive world through CAFE standards.  Statist knows-what’s-best-for-you government doesn’t like certain cars, so they require automakers to not make them by putting restrictions on them that can’t be met.  Same government force used to mandate the use of nonexistent fuels.

One final note – police and law enforcement won’t have these in their guns.  Ever.

Car thieves disable and manipulate RFID systems with computers in order to steal cars.  Any criminal with forethought could disable police firearms.

Or, in another scary thought, any government with a broadcaster could be disabling citizen firearms.  Makes confiscation needless if a gov agency can just brick a gun with the click of a mouse.

Beretta has already noted there “There always seems to be a problem with Maryland“, and now Beretta is coming up with solutions to their Maryland problem.

Written by Ugo Gussalli Beretta in the Washington Times:

My family has operated our business from the same small town in northern Italy for 500 years. This means that when we make a commitment to a local community, our hope is to do so for decades, if not centuries, to come.

We apply this same philosophy to all of our factories and locations throughout the world. Such a commitment is not a one-way street, though.

Ugo Beretta makes the point that Beretta brings not only jobs, but makes firearms for the US military and citizens to defend themselves… and yet they’re treated poorly.

Our business has grown in recent years, and because of that, we needed to expand production in our U.S facility, located in Accokeek, just outside of Washington, D.C., in the Maryland suburbs.

Unfortunately, as we were planning that expansion, Maryland’s governor and legislature voted in favor of new regulations that unfairly attack products we make and that our customers want.

These regulations also demean our law-abiding customers, who must now be fingerprinted like criminals before they can be allowed to purchase one of our products.

And Beretta stands up for their people and their customers by voting with their feet and their dollars.

…because of these new restrictions and the pattern of harassment aimed at lawful firearm owners we have seen in Maryland over the decades, we decided to expand our facilities in a state that shows more respect for citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights.

We chose Tennessee for our new facility expansion. Our plans for that location are extensive and long-lasting.

We chose Tennessee because the governor and legislators in that state understand what it means to support businesses (such as through job recruitment and training programs) that improve employment in the state without treating companies as a necessary evil.

We chose Tennessee also because the vast majority of its residents and their elected officials have shown that they respect and honor the American tradition of personal freedoms, including the right to bear arms.

Just like Magpul left Colorado, Beretta is moving away from Maryland and moving towards Tennessee.

Political decisions have consequences.

I wonder if Beretta is still making the fairly well-regarded 96D?

beretta 96dNot a huge fan of the safety on the slide… but I gotta give credit for a company taking a stance like that.

Maybe I’ll just look into a 92FS instead just to see how the great 80s action movie handgun would hold up in a pistol competition.  Yippie-kay-ay indeed.

Minor addendum here, but Beretta also currently owns SAKO and Tikka, two Finnish rifle manufacturers who make some of the best guns on the market.  Beretta’s stance for citizens’ rights makes one of those Tikka T3s that much more attractive.

tikka t3 liteIn fact, coupled with another pro-2A business, very, very attractive.