The religion of proffessional sports

Alright a little bit of a detour here, going away from the legal aspect of things for a little here.

One of the things I will never understand is the religious fanaticism that some sports fans have. To tell these people that "their" team sucks or their favorite player sucks is the equivalent of blaspheming God or something. And I put "their" in quotes because they have no ownership in these teams. Beyond bets with friends they have no financial stake if the team wins or loses. Simply put, who cares if "your" team wins or loses.

I especially don't get the point of getting belligerent on someone simply because they like another team. We see this taken to the level of insanity with European soccer fans... and to the level of stupidity with Josh "Tank" Watts, who hence fourth shall be known as Septic Tank.

So what did this guy do to earn the title of King Douchebag? Why is the internet becoming aflame with pure hatred for this guy? Why is an unassuming bar and grill quite possibly on the verge of closing down?

Read on...

Deadspin also covered the Incident.

"Courtney was the first one out of the vehicle, and while she was getting Garrett's wheelchair, one guy immediately started yelling at her," said Brett Coburn, who described the man's comments as "taunts."
Coburn said that when the group reached the front door, the fan, who other patrons called Tank, was waiting for them.
"He was standing at the door, and he started harassing us because of the Cowboys jerseys," Coburn said.
He said Tank told Garrett Carnes, "Don't use your wheelchair as a crutch."
According to multiple accounts of the incident, Carnes told the patron – and others who were ridiculing the group for being Cowboys' fans – that he was a veteran and had lost his legs in Afghanistan.
Members of the Carnes-Coburn party tried to "defend ourselves verbally," Brett Coburn said.
He said Tank walked toward Carnes in a threatening way, and some other patrons stepped in to break it up.

So now Marines are pissed at him, servicemen from other braches and even other national militaries are pissed at him, and even random civilians are pissed at him. 
 
Never mind the fact that Garrett Carnes is a Marine and lost his legs in Afghanistan. You just have to have some serious problems to pick a fight with a guy WITH NO LEGS over something as asinine and petty as sports. There is just no reason to ever start something with someone just minding their own business over something like sports, let alone a guy with no legs. Septic Tank is probably one of the worst kinds of bullies, even in high school I never saw any of the usual bullies picking on the retarded and cripple kids.

On a side note, I have friends and family who were in combat, some didn't go into the military with any reasons loftier than having nothing else better to do with their life at the time. So I'm not going to get into the "fighting for freedom" thing. But they did their job under some tough circumstances, they signed up for a job that doesn't hide that fact that it's a tough job and followed though. He took on a tough job, knowing full well he might come home in pieces, if he comes home at all. And that's worthy of respect. Garrett Carnes certainly didn't deserve to come home just to have this waste of organic and genetic material harass him try to start a fight with him for nothing deeper than a brand name. I hope him the best and that he can get a set of prosthetic that'll let him walk again.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so instead of going though a full blown psycho analysis and dissecting this guy on a psychological level, I'll just post up these pictures and let them speak for themselves as to the sort of person Septic Tank is. I'm confident we've all seen and know this kind of person somewhere. They have different ethnicities, but they all seem to look the same. I don't even need to break things down since you probably are already familiar with one incarnation of Tank or another.

At the end of the day though I'll just never understand the extent of stupidity that some people take their fanaticism to. I know I know, not everyone is like this, and I'm not talking about those people. But for someone like Septic Tank here it reaches the level of religious fanaticism. I'm not going to say I wish violence upon these people, because I don't, they're just not worth that kind of effort. I'm only pointing out just how far people take their sports and this is just the pinnacle of stupidity. I mean really, what has anyone's "team" done for them that they would be willing to get into legal trouble for them? What has the Panthers done for Josh Watts that made him instigate this whole situation for the sole reason that Garrett Carnes's jersey had another team's name on it. I seriously doubt any of the Panthers players, support staff, or owners know Josh "Tank" Watts personally. My family might be huge Lakers fans, and I might have a huge amount of respect for Kareem Abdul Jabar, but the fact is, the Lakers haven't done a damn thing for me to care whether or not they win or lose, let alone start something with someone who likes whom ever their rival happens to be that season.

The Aurora shooting

This without a doubt is a tragic event, and no doubt one that'll kick up a lot of emotions.

But before emotions get the better of us, lets step back a moment and really take a look at what happened. I've seen many people arguing that "assault weapons" should be banned. But would stricter gun laws have prevented this? This is a guy who had his apartment booby trapped with homemade bombs. He was set on killing and hurting as many people as he could regardless of the method. Just because guns are banned doesn't mean rampages don't happen. In Japan, people can't own guns the same way they can in the U.S. and yet instead they have people going on rampages with a knife. In Akihabara one guy stabbed and killed 7 people. Another Japanese knife rampage saw a guy get on a bus and stab 12 students. In 2001, in Santa Barbara California, David Attias drove his car into a group of people and killed 4.

There is something going on here far beyond gun ownership. The real issue isn't gun control, but why this happened to begin with. James Holmes is clearly a disturbed individual. And that is where the focus should be, on the perpetrator, not the means. What would drive someone to such acts. What would drive Holmes and Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech infamy) to carry out these acts?

To prevent these kinds of rampages, we need to deeper, much deeper than just gun control. Is there something broken in our culture? 

I don't have an answer for this one, but I can point out the direction where we need to go to answer the question of why did this happen and how can it be prevented. It's easy to become overcome with emotion in tragedies like this, but acting upon knee-jerk emotions won't prevent it from happening again. 

Unions, what are they good for?

Well unions brought us the weekend, 40 work weeks, and a whole host of other things.

But today Unions are catching a lot of heat, and a lot of blame, plus all this talk of "right to work", and during all this, people are forgetting their history. What was it like working without a Union. Well it isn't really history since it's still going on.

Years before the Manx Cat went to law school he worked as software tester for two of the big titans of the video game industry. There were no Unions for the Quality Assurance department. QA is a very strange monster, because of this fact.

Many companies will hire QA workers as temps because California requires several things to be provided for permanent employees. So typically a worker will get a job for about 9 or so months, then get laid off, take unemployment and reapply for their job again in three or so months. Sure at first it sounds like a sweet set up with 3 months "vacation" but on the other hand there's no guaruntee you'll get your job back.

The next issue is forget about upward mobility. You can also forget about getting a raise. You could get fired for next to no reason. When the project shipped, other departments like those (in the opinion of the Manx Cat) assholes in marketing get a bonus while we got the pink slip. If there were any issues with the project, the QA dept always, always got the blame. Essentially you were at the mercy of the management, which on more than one occasion was somewhat incompetent.

Most of all you are expendable, if they get rid of you there is always someone else there to replace you. Job security is really non-existant, you slack off too much, you get canned. You work super efficient and get the project out early, you still might get canned. The only hope for job security is getting into a different department.

It's almost like something out of a Charles Dicken's novel, just without ghosts of Christmas and beat downs by Pinkertons. On the plus side though the wages are good for what it is, one company paid $12 and hour, while another paid $11 and hour.

Nature of the beast? Maybe. But the beast would certainly be much different if there was a Union. If you think "right to work" is great, if you think Unions are bad, go work as a Quality Assurance tester in the video game industry, where you have no Unions to represent you.

Assault Rifle, Assault Weapon, Assault... What?

I'm going to take a slight detour here to take a little time to clear some stuff up. With another piece of feel good but won't make you any safer piece of legislation floating around in California, it's important to know what terms and what's what. The "what" here being assault rifles and a "assault weapons".

To sum it up, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" it a made up media term. But yes there is such thing as an "assault rifle".

The term assault rifle is derived from the German term Sturgewehr which translates into "storm rifle". Its a nickname that Adolf Hitler coined for the StG-44/MP-44. The StG-44 was a revolutionary new rifle. It combined the characteristics of several different gun classes into one package. It featured a detachable magazine like the MP-40 and the BAR, along with a select fire feature that allowed semi-auto (on pull of the trigger only gets you one shot) or full-auto (machine gun). One of the biggest innovations was that it fired a medium powered rifle cartridge (ammo). At the time the rifle cartridges were power rounds like the 7.62x54R (Soviet Union), the .303 British, the .30-06 (United States) 7.7x58 (Japan) and the 7.92x57 (Germany), these were powerful rounds with long range. BUT, they also had strong recoil, if you had this round fireing out of a fully automatic weapon like the German's FG-42 or the BAR the gun would "jitter like a crackhead". So what the Germans did was cut the 7.92x57 down to 7.92x33. What this did was reduce the recoil down to a much more controlable recoil while still retaining the power of a rifle (albeit much weaker than the full-sized, full-powered round).

So then the term assault rifle began being applied to rifles with these characteristics. Pistol grip, select-fire, detachable magazine, and firing a medium powered cartridge. That last point is what makes the difference between and assault rifle and a battle rifle, with the battle rifle fireing the larger rounds I mentioned, examples of battle rifles are the M-14 and the U.S. Navy's Mk.17.

But things in California start to get weird. Precisely because of definitions and a lack of understanding of capabilities. Here, lets use the M-1A as an example.

Kind of looks like grandpa's deer rifle don't it? Anyway, by the criteria we had earlier, by definition this is not an assault rifle. No pistol grip, lacks full-auto capability, and fires a full powered round (7.62x51). By California law this isn't an "assault weapon".

Now let's dress our M-1A up a little bit, change around the furniture. New stock and the like.

Looks a bit different now don't it, almost like a completely different rifle. BUT, the basic workings of the rifle remain the same. It's more like car that's been "pimped out" but has had no engine work and the engine remains in it's factory configuration. Alright so lets break this thing down according to our criteria. Pistol grip? Yes. Detachable magazine? Yes. Select fire? No. Chambered for a medium powered cartridge? No. So therefore this rifle is not an assault rifle in the traditional sense. But California law doesn't see it that way, California law sees this as an "assault weapon" because it features a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. This can be made legal in California with a magazine lock + bullet button modifacation.

For some odd reason California decided to use a different set of characteristics to define "assault weapon". Courtesy of Calguns.(If it comes out hard to read, highlight the text, couldn't get the formatting fixed.)

Category I assault weapons are those specifically named by make and model in Penal Code §12276 (and echoed in California Code of Regulation §979.10). These firearms are assault weapons at even the bare receiver/frame level – regardless of any particular characteristic features.  Thus an Uzi receiver would be banned by name, but a similar Group Industries receiver would be legal (as long as offending Category III features were not added).

Category II assault weapons consist of the AR15 and AK “series” of firearms.  While AR and AK series were named in the original Roberti-Roos laws, due to various key court decisions about “series” membership  it’s useful to refer to them as their own category, those these guns really have just fallen back into the Roberti-Roos list once listed by DOJ.

Category III assault weapons are defined by characteristic features listed in PC 12276.1:

RIFLES:

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of: 

          ▪  a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

          ▪  a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

          ▪  a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

          ▪  a forward pistol grip.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.

PISTOLS:

A semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of the following:

         ▪  a threaded barrel;

         ▪  a second handgrip;

         ▪  capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip;

         ▪  a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing
            bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing
            the barrel;

A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having capacity to accept  over 10 rounds.

SHOTGUNS:

A semiautomatic shotgun having both of the following:

         ▪  a folding or telescoping stock;

         ▪  a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

            a thumbhole stock, or a vertical handgrip.

 A semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines;

 Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Notice there under the section for rifles, it deviates from the military definition by not requiring full-auto capabilities? California essentially expanded the term "assault rifle" to go beyond the rifle class. So while the military wouldn't consider the dressed up M-1A up there as an assault type weapon, California legislature did for what ever reason.


Also the definition there that California uses for an "assault pistol" (I guess it would be called) you usually see on a sub-machine gun. Maybe California is using the German characteristics for Maschinenpistole (machine pistol). Either way, the military generally only applies the "assault" descriptor to rifles.

So that's what's what. If you pay attention you'll notice a lot of people in the media will call something an "assault rifle" when it isn't. Or they'll just use that big blanket term "assault weapon" which has no real military definition. No real definition PERIOD.  I say that because of the fact that "assault weapon" doesn't take into account the gun's functioning. As I've pointed out with the M-1A. We can change around the stock of the rifle, while not touching the working parts and turn it from a simple rifle to "assault weapon" despite the fact that the mechanism, remains the same. The rifle will still use the same magazine, not some 30 rounder, and it remains semi-auto. The core performance has not changed. No more than dropping a 6 CD changer into a car changes the engine's performance. Changing the stock does not make it go from 4 cylinder to V-6.

SB 249: Obama isn't after your guns, Leland Yee is.

So Leland Yee is at it again. Like a typical career/corupt politician feeding on the fears of his constituencies to maintain his career. Now while I can sit here and rip this guy a new asshole with my May'N playlist providing the soundtrack, I'm not going to do that. Instead my whole point here is why this is a bad law and will not make you, me, or any kids you might have safer.

Here's a link to the legislative abomination that Yee's using to maintain his career.

I'm going to hit this two ways, from a common sense stand point and from a legal constitutional standpoint.  But first let me explain what these kits are. They're commonly reffered to as "bullet buttons" what they are is a little button or tab that can be pushed down with a screwdriver, punch or bullet (hur hur bullet button) that allows the magazine to be released. They are too small to be pushed with a finger, and require a tool so technically the rifle will still have a fixed magazine. Now California's gun laws make no sense because people inexperienced with firearms are the ones who keep writing the laws, but that's a rant for later. Anyway the reason this is a big deal is because in California you cannot have a rifle with a pistol grip (IE the AR-15 or variants of the AK-47) AND a detachable magazines. This comes from laws being made by people who's definition of "assault weapon" comes from watching Hollywood movies and M rated video games.

So why does this law lack any common sense. Well first, who are the only people who care about installing a bullet button? People who want to comply with the law. If you were going to break the law would you care if your gun complies with the law? Of course not. So then how would this law stop someone from illegally obtaining a weapon though black market means (which would have full auto-capability) or though out right theft? It doesn't. This law is just another piece of feel-good legislation that solves a problem that isn't there. These aren't kits that convert a semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger, one shot) into full auto. Any such kit is already illegal anyway.

Here's the other thing, the law seems to ignore a lot of other rifles that function in a similar, if not the SAME EXACT way, only difference is appearance. Let me introduce you to this Kalashnikov variant.

As you can see this version of the AK-103, the 7.62x39 Saiga made by IZHMASH Russia. It was designed for hunting the saiga antelope (hence the name "Saiga") and used the AK as a base to provide hunters with a proven and reliable design. This is purely a sporting rifle, the Russian military doesn't use this rifle, and IZHMASH makes no attempt to market it as a military rifle. This rifle is semi-automatic, has picatinny accessory rails in the upper forward handguard (you see those ridges on the top?) along with the Russian style side rail (not visible, on the left side of the rifle) where the scope is, along with a detachable magazine. But there's something else different about this one. No mounts for a bayonet, no pistol grip no "evil features", because of that this Kalashnikov gets a free pass. Sporting AKs with pistol grips functions NO DIFFERENTLY than this benign looking one. They might look like their military cousins, but they are different animals altogether.

Lets take a look at another rifle, one that's home grown and made in America. The M-1A.

This rifle is the civilian brother of the military's M-14. As you can see, aside from possibly the compesator on the end of the barrel, this also lacks any "evil features" and wouldn't likely be affected by this law. Again, it might look like it's military cousins, and might even look scary or threatening but as far as function goes, this rifle is not all that different from a typical .30-06 deer rifle such as this one. The Browning BAR Mk. II hunting rifle, despite the name, it isn't related to the classic BAR from WWI and II.

So then... what does this law really accomplish then? You can reconfigure your rifle to comply to it without affecting the function what so ever. It isn't as if SB249 is preventing you from owning a machine gun, you can't own one anyway without  getting the Federal government's approval, and that entails some serious hoop to jump though and serious money to pay. SB249 really doesn't accomplish anything aside from making a law abiding citizen a criminal. Perhaps that's what this is about, not public safety, but control?

There seems to be this obsession with "assault weapons" in the media and in politics. Simply put there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" the definitions used for "assault weapon" rely exclusively on appearance and not on function. Appearances can be changed while function remains the same. I can dress up like Jason Vorhees or Micheal Myers one day, and my three piece suit on the next and still be the same person despite what I wear.


Now the constitutional part of the show.

The digest at the begging mentions this:

This Bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specific reason. 

This language is kind of vague and even I don't quite get it. BUT it is possible that it would allow a person's rifle to be taken away without just compensation. Check out the text of the 5th 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.

The bolded part there is commonly referred to as the Takings Clause. Subsequent judicial rulings have interpreted this as the government can't take your stuff or run you off your land without compensation. So Yee wants to take your rifle without compensation, the Constitution won't let him.

So at the end of the day who does this law really protect? Who does it serve? Leland Yee's interests I would think.




UPDATE: In light of the two shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin (condolences to all the victims and their families), I felt it necessary to update this as Yee and his chief of staff Adam Keigwin continue their jihad against rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is important to point out that the AR-15 the shooter in Colorado used DID NOT use a "bullet button". In fact, a bullet button actually slows down the reload speed of these rifles.

The media calls bullet buttons a "loophole" but they isn't the case, they were created to comply with California law. Yee's chief of staff Adam Keigwin commented that you can simply weld the magazine to the receiver. For one thing, many magazines are plastic and plastic doesn't weld to metal. Secondly by doing this, you are creating a dangerous object. ARs and AKs are not designed to function this way, if they haven't been manufactured that way. Welding the magazine would make it difficult and extremely dangerous to remove a jam where two bullets are loaded into the chamber (called a double feed) and in some cases, the nose of one bullet is resting on the primer (what discharges the bullet) which may cause the first bullet to unintentionally discharge. The bullet button was a modification to comply with California law, while still maintaining the safe operation of the weapon.

There have been two U.S. Supreme Court cases, the first, District of Colombia v. Heller, and the second, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill. Things will get a little long winded here, but it's important to break down these two case to understand the 2nd Amendment and how SB249 violates it.

First, lets look at D.C. v. Heller.
We think that Miller 's “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial *625and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980)(citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. Words of Justice Scalia, writing for the majority. 

Here I'll point out that variants of the AR-10 and AR-15, as well as semi-auto only variants of the AK-47/74 are some of the most popular rifles in the United States. I've seen one or the other in literally every gunshop and every Big 5 sporting goods store I've been too. I've seen their ammunition sold even in Wal-Marts. Aside from possibly WWII surplus, you don't really get more common use than ARs and AKs. 


...the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.

Many gun control proponents argue that the 2nd Amendment applies to a militia. While I'll agree, and yes there is NO mention of self-defense anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, but because of the way our legal system works, judicial rulings are every bit law as the Constitution so long as they are not contrary to the Constitution. Here the SCOTUS is expanding the 2nd Amendment, not constricting or violating it. As it stands now, the SCOTUS has found that self-defense is included in the 2nd.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

While I myself wouldn't recommend it, some people use rifles and carbines for home defense, mainly for the added power. Most bullet proof vests on the market won't stop a rifle round a close range. So if a robber came in with a bullet proof vest, the home owner would still have the power to stop him. Secondly handguns are expensive, a Czech Cz-75 9mm semi-auto pistol will run you about $500 after taxes, a Mosin-Nagant carbine will run you in the area of $150-200 after taxes. If you're poor, odds are you buy one gun that has cheap ammo and make it pull double duty of sporting and home defense. 

Shooting for sport is also a lawful purpose, in fact there are even shooting events at the Olympics. Since many rifles on the market feature pistol grips, SB249 comes dangerously close to banning an entire class. Furthermore it has been reported that Yee wishes to amend SB249 to include all rifles with "easily detachable" magazines. As technology has progressed, modern rifles overwhelmingly have detachable magazines. The most modern rifle/carbine I can think of off the top of my head with an internal (non-detachable) magazine is the Russian SKS-45 designed in 1945. If Yee has his way he will most certainly be banning an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for a lawful purpose. 

Essentially, what it appears here is that the SCOTUS has said that the 2nd Amendment applies to self-defense, and that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for total bans of any class of arms. Furthermore Scalia points out that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a group right. 

The next case we have up is McDonald v. City of Chicago. The issue here was whether the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment applies to the States, or just the Federal government. 

We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

Here basically what the court is saying is that under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment applies to the States as well as the Federal government. Meaning that States cannot enact total gun bans. 

Leland Yee and Adam Keigwin are on the wrong side of the law here. And this isn't the first time. Previously Yee attempted to pass legislation regulating violent video games which was slammed down by the SCOTUS as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Futhermore, banning the sale of ARs and AKs will have a significant and adverse affect on businesses. Many gunshops are locally owned small businesses. Banning these rifles would hurt their sales. They wouldn't be able to sell a popular product, and sales of ammunition would likely drop. It's very possible that small businesses across the state would be forced to close down. 



This next part is just my personal opinions, as opposed to the commentary I try to do though a legal education lens. So if this kind of stuff makes you butthurt, then stop reading.

My personal opinion is that Leland Yee has never read the Constitution of the United States of America even once throughout his political career. Instead of working to uphold the Constitution, he instead builds his political career on fear mongering and capitalizing on that fear he builds up. In short he poisons the minds of California residents and then turns and sells them snake oil. He attempts to pass laws that would fail Constitutional muster and as a result forces California to defend these indefensible laws in federal court at the financial expense of California.

By using the Colorado and Wisconsin shootings for political gain shows what a morally bankrupt individual Leland Yee and Adam Keigwin are.

Yee in my opinion is also a hypocrite. He opposed a ban on shark fining, the practice of catching sharks, removing the fin to be used in soups, and releasing the shark, stating "another example in a long line of examples of insensitivity to the culture and traditions of the Asian American community." Well, target shooting and hunting have long been parts of the culture and traditions of many American communities, and Yee has been attacking gun owners for quite some time now. Yee clearly has no respect for communities that have been in this nation since the start. I'm also Asian American and I don't care for the shark finning tradition. 

Yee is also quoted as saying "It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion." Several things with this. There is no such thing as "assault weapons" I've covered this in my entry Assault Rifles, Assault Weapons, Assault... what?" Secondly, those are the words of a dictator, not a representative. In a democratic system there is almost always room for debate and discussion. It's what separates a democratic system from a totalitarian one. Leland Yee has NO RIGHT to be in any leadership position in the United States of America. He has no understanding of our Constitution or our traditions. He may be naturalized, but Leland Yee is still an outsider.

Leland Yee and people on his staff like Adam Keigwin will continue their fear mongering and snake oil sales. To that, I leave this quote:

"Don't give in to the fear. When you give in to the fear, that's when the darkness comes." - Peter Stillman, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

Guns, and great responsibility

First off, I could be considered a "semi-avid" shooter, by that I go out to the range when money and time permit, which unfortunately isn't exactly a regular basis. I own a .357 revolver, and a couple semi-auto and bolt action rifles. I was taught how to shoot by an Army and a Marine Vietnam vets. These devices aren't toys, they're dangerous, very dangerous. And as very dangerous things, I know they come with a lot of responsibility.

Apparently people out there don't understand the kind of responsibility that comes with owning a gun. That's the only explanation for this kind of shit.

Yeah you're seeing this right. Some fuckwit really thinks it's funny to pretend to shoot kids.

Yeah some fuckwit really is seeling this to other fuckwits that thing it's funny. As a gun owner, this goes beyond irresponsible, I find this beyond repulsive. For one it just makes gun owners in general look bad. Most gun owners are careful and responsible. But the something like this comes along and grabs more negative attention. Negative attention that goes and fires up the anti-gun crowd. 

 

It's often said that people are scared of what they don't understand. When I talk to people about going out to do some target shooting I compare it to archery, and explain how I personally find it kind of meditating. Out on the range, it's just you, your rifle, and the target, you just tune everything out. And your awareness just rockets through the roof, you become aware of your breathing, and your heart rate, and sometimes I feel like I can even control my heart rate. That's how focused and in the zone you get. It's an awesome feeling.

But then along comes an ass like this guy and the ones who buy crap like this that just aggravate the feelings of fear with people unfamiliar with guns.

If I was a defending Zimmerman I would be beyond pissed over this. This is the sort of thing that could taint and bias a jury, by making gun owners look like a bunch of trigger happy cavemen.

The Constitution, on marriage. Like it or not it's the supreme law of the land

Alright I'm sure at this point everyone has heard about North Carolina amending their constitution to criminalize same sex marriages. I've come across several people saying something along the lines of "well the voted for it so tough for the gays" well slow down a moment...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That right there is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Sum it up, the Constitution is more or less the final say in legal matters. Sure the U.S. Supreme Court likes to think that it is the final say, but they're only the final say on whether a law goes against the Constitution or not. Anyway moving on, there's more to talk about with the Constitution.

Incorporation - Constitutional law. The process of applying the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states by interpreting the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause as encompassing those provisions. 


 - Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Pocket Edition

Alright, what that basically means is that the Bill of Rights is applied to both the Federal government AND the States. Before it was only interpreted as applying to the Federal government.

So what does all this have to do with North Carolina and people voting for what they want?

Well... the Constitution, not the voters reigns supreme.

To pack it all together, basically it means that because of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights now applies to the States. So now State government cannot pass legislation that violates the Bill of Rights.

Which now walks into Issue Two of this whole thing.

Does banning same-sex marriage violate the Constitution?

Well it can go either way right now. Flash back to 2008 and California's Prop 8. Passed but just a bare majority, like 53% or something like that. Shortly after it went to court and a Federal district judge ruled it unconstitutional. Violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision was later affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Though on the other hand other states have laws banning same-sex marriages, but it might just mean no one there challenged the law's constitutionality.

Though the thing that's really scary about this, isn't even the whole same sex marriage thing, it's that there are A LOT of Americans there who don't even know how the Constitution works. I chalk that up to a failure on the part of the education system.

Many people, well many people on Facebook anyway, think that once something is voted on by a majority it's set in stone. Wrong, has to pass constitutional muster first.

So does this pass constitutional muster? Well it hasn't in the 9th Circuit, and if the Supreme Court decides to see the case and agrees with the 9th Circuit then across the country same-sex marriage bans will not pass constitutional muster, so it won't matter how big a majority votes for a ban, it's still not becoming law.