This Just In: "Fees Control Crime!"

Since I work in Virginia, one of the topics that comes up often in casual discussion is the Virginia abusive driver fees. These went into effect in the state on July 1st and have been met with a firestorm of criticism.

In th Post this morning, there is this article. I came across this marvelous masterpiece of spin within:

Even with the withering criticism, Howell and Stosch say they are standing by the concept of the fees, because they believe the fines have made highways safer since they went into effect July 1.

Between July 1 and Aug. 1, state police issued 23 percent fewer reckless-driving citations and 11 percent fewer speeding tickets than the previous year, Howell said. There were also 88 traffic fatalities in July, compared with 94 during the same period last year, according to state police.

Howell and Stosch are hilarious! Masterful, this truly is. Perhaps the reason the State Police have issued fewer reckless driving citations is because they don't want to create even more court challenges to the fees than already exist! Reckless driving is one of the charges that can trigger the fees and the last thing they want to do is to yank in even more counties that the ones that already seeing Constitutional challenges to the fees.

But no, it is the threat of the fees that have caused the reduction in reckless driving. Someone how I doubt it. Somehow I think the troopers are exercising their authority to adjust what they saw the radar read when the driver blew by and perhaps it was a "13" rather than a "23" and the ticket reflects that along with a warning to "slow down (wink and nod)". Especially with all the controversy over the fees and their fairness.

Spin, gotta love it.

On Firing Squads

I was watching a prison show called Lockdown that was doing an episode on Utah maximum security and death row inmates. Like a lot of people, I do watch stuff like this and shows like Cops. I do it for two reasons.

One, to provide a visual lesson of places I'd prefer not to wind up.

Two, to be entertained by the absolute stupidity of the average criminal and the lengths they'll go to make excuses for their bad behavior rather than take responsibility for it.

During this episode, they came to the subject of executions in the State of Utah. Utah, it seems, is one of those few states that still retains the firing squad as a form of execution. When sentenced, the condemned gets to choose between firing squad and lethal injection. Most choose lethal injection.

But this one fellow they were profiling chose firing squad and the segment gave a brief discussion on how it worked.

The condemned will be strapped to a wooden chair with a Kevlar backstop on the wall. They are given a hood and a target is placed on their chest.

On the other side of the execution chamber, in the firing room, five rifles are laid out and five officers from the jurisdictions where the crimes took place perform the deed. The program stated that one of the rifles would be loaded with blanks so as to introduce doubt into the process as to which officer fired the killing shot.

This is done, folks, so an individual who is not an executioner by trade can sleep at night with a clear conscience telling themselves it wasn't them that killed the condemned because their gun had blanks in it.

Now, days later, I'm thinking about it.

I thought firing squads worked the other way around with regard to the blanks in the rifles? That only one rifle would be live and the others blank. Assuming all of the officers were honestly aiming for the target, none would know which rifle expelled the lethal rounds. Four rounds for five men seems a little, if you pardon the expression, overkill.

And messy.

And then it got me thinking about the preparation beforehand for such an execution.

If you talk to experienced shooters, they will tell you they can tell the difference between a live round and a blank. The report and recoil are different. Furthermore, in semi-automatic rifles the magazine weights are different. You couldn't use an AR-15 as the execution weapon because they don't cycle correctly with blank ammunition.

Which brings me to the point of this post.

What of the true executioner, the one who preps the rifles the deed and lays them out for the five men to take up and carry out the sentence with?

This person will know who fires the killing shot because they will be the one that knows in which position the live rifles are placed. Unless the procedure is that the weapons are placed in a rack and taken up by each officer at random and absolving the preparer of guilt.

Otherwise, they would go home with the knowledge that they knew who had carried out the deed. Which would defeat the intent of introducing doubt into the process in order to keep conciences clear. Such preparation beforehand must take such doubt into account at every step to make sure the final knowledge of who is a killer in the service of the State remains clouded.

Which brings us to the type of weapon needed.

In order to maintain imparitiality and anonymity, you need to use semi-automatic rifles. The reason is simple: You cannot permit the firer of the rifle to see the magazine.

In a firing squad, it is possible that the first shot may not kill the condemned outright. The chest is a large target but it is possible, especially with those not accustomed with up-close-and-personal killing, to miss the heart and leave the condemned alive. Preferably unconcious but still alive.

If this occurs, the firing squad may be ordered to fire a second volley. Usually, the second volley will finish off the condemned and the unsavory but necessary duty of the State will be discharged.

In the course of a follow-up volley, those in the firing squad must not have a chance to see the magazine. In a bolt-action rifle with an internal magazine when you are cycling the bolt, it is very easy to see the round entering the chamber if even for an instant. In order to keep that element of doubt, you must ensure this cannot happen.

For those of you unfamiliar with guns, a blank round and a live round are visually different. A blank round has no bullet it in (lacks the pointy end) and thus is very easy to tell apart from its live counterpart.

Hence why you need a semi-automatic. By the time the shot is fired, the next one is in the chamber and the empty shell casing gives no clue as to whether a blank or live round was fired. The shooter never sees the next round in the magazine being chambered and will not know if it is blank or live.

The person preparing the rifles for the execution should load each magazine to capacity. Ideally, the mix of blanks and live rounds in the top portion of the magazine should be alternated so as to further cloud who fired the killing shot in a follow-up volley. And to keep the weights as even as possible. It is possible someone who fired a blank for the first shot may fire a live round in the second and score the killing shot. Hopefully, they should never feel the difference in the shot and go home with the nagging doubt as to whether they were "the one".

Given the needs of preserving doubt within the firing squad, semi-automatics are necessary. And when the deed is completed, the rifles must be safed and placed back into the rack or on the table with the magazines in place. This, likewise, is to prevent the squad members from seeing whether a live or blank was at the top of their magazine. The squad should be led out and the armorer brought back in and once alone, remove the magazines and safe the rifles. Done properly, perhaps they will never know which gun was responsible for ending the life of the condemned.

In terms of equipment, it seems the prefered firing squad weapon is the M1 Garand or M1A/M14. The AR-15 is a poor choice as mentioned previously because it doesn't function correctly firing blanks without modification with a Blank Firing Adapter (which renders the rifle unable to fire live ammunition until it is removed). The M1/M14 is ideal because the blank .308 or .30-06 round generates sufficient gas pressure to cycle the action without any modifications to the gun and both are magazine-fed. This permits them to be loaded and prepped without those who will fire them to have to see the magazine contents or the subsequent round(s) being chambered if a follow-up volley needs to be fired.

And surplus M1/M1A/M14 rifles wound up in the hands of many prison systems over the years. It would not be difficult to keep a small number of these on hand over the years in order to carry out an execution if needed.

I wonder why I think about stuff like this. I mean, people have to think of stuff like this in order to plan such unpleasant acts but this isn't my job to do so. You probably think me sick or weird for doing so even though someone else has already done so. Thinking about the minutiae of how a firing squad is equipped, managed and performs. Such things most normal people recoil in horror at the prospect of. And here I am taking a totally clinical view of the requirements necessary to properly carry out an execution by firing squad so as to save the souls of those involved.

Is it any wonder that lethal injection is the preferred mode of execution? It seems more humane, less brutal. People just (or are supposed to) go to sleep. No different than when we have a cherished pet put to sleep. It is easier to watch. It lets everyone have a sense of doubt since they weren't involved. Each may have played a part but no one person can lay claim to have potentially carried out the act in full. It is distant and clinical too.

I think firing squads are better. Harder, yes. It is brutal, violent and personal. I reminds those involved that sometimes the duty to society and those charged to carry it out comes with a price. Let there be a shred of doubt, to be sure, but let it come with the knowledge that Justice was necessary. Unpleasant and hard but necessary. But it is inhumane and uncivil and we are supposed to be beyond such acts of brutality.

But as the actor in or witness to firing squad justice, it is anything but clinical. I bet if more serial killers, murdering rapists and child molesters were put up against the wall frequently, we'd see fewer of them in society. Let their last sight being the twinkles of light through a black bag, their last sound be the roar of a rifle and last thought be of shock and pain and hopefully a flash of remorse. It wouldn't level the scales of Justice but would help tip them a little back in the right direction.

Somehow a pinprick and drifting into blackness in the haze of a barbituate stupor just doesn't seem fair.

Too bad in Utah the prisoners get the choice.

I guess it's the civilized thing to do.

Newsom and the Nanny City

I peruse the forums over at Democratic Underground regularly. Not necessarily because I happen to be a progressive (by their definition, I'm a rabid, foaming, right-wing BushCo totalitarian thug with delusions of grandeur) but because I like to keep tabs on what the other side is thinking towards us.

So, with that, comes this little article about the new gun control law that San Francisco has passed.

What has them up in arms is this statement in the article:

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," Harris said.

How do you interpret that statement?

I interpret it as them coming to my door to check on whether I'm storing my guns safely whenever they feel like.

I have two questions:

1. How exactly will the police know I have guns in order to come to my house in the first place?
2. How does this knowledge, in the absence of a crime being committed, serve as probable cause for them to do so in the first place?

I'm going to address #2 first.

The furor on DU is that this means they will do it without a warrant. I happen to agree. Given that, if the nice LEOs show up on my doorstep asking to see if my guns are secured, the first question out of my mouth will be: "May I see your warrant, please?". If they don't produce one, I will politely and gently inform them that I am sorry that I cannot let them in since I am not sure what they are referring to. No matter how insistent or threatening they get, that door will only be opened fully if they break it down. I don't plan on giving them a reason to do so.

Just because the police say that want to come in does not mean you have to let them in. Absent a warrant, you don't have to let them in or speak to them at all. Short, polite but in the end, tell them "No" and shut the door.

Get yourself one of these to help make the point.

By the way, after you close said door and they've left, make phone calls and work real fast to get your stuff out of there if you can. Preferably out-of-state. They will be back and likely with said absent warrant in hand.

Which leads to #1.

How will the nice LEOs wanting to check out my handguns know I had them in the first place?

Does San Francisco or the State of California have mandatory registration of all handguns? If they don't, someone has a lot to answer for. The reason is because they will have had to have obtained the knowledge that I possessed handguns by illegal acquisition of transfer records to figure it out in the first place. And if they have a warrant noting the possession of such handguns absent mandatory registration, I am going to be really interested later on in having my lawyer challenged the blatant violation of my 4th Amendment rights in violation of Federal law.

Statements made by Ms. Harris in this context scare the crap out of me. You want to know how a police state comes to fruition? This should serve as an example.

Some people may argue that your ownership of guns automatically makes you suspect and the State has a duty to ensure the safety of others by ensuring you are storing your guns safely.

I have news for you: That is not the State's responsibility!

It is mine.

The only time the State should be entering my home to check on my guns or my poessession of them if they have reason to believe I have committed a crime with them! A real, honest-to-God, hurt/killed/maimed puppies, robbed a bank, took hostages kind of crime.

Because unless you have an informant in my home describing where and how my guns are stored, you have no reason or cause to enter my home.

And even with registration, how does that information serve as probable cause to search anyone's home to check for compliance with a "safe storage" law?

I wonder how the progressives over on DU will feel when the same logic is applied to something they hold dear? I can't think of anything at the moment but we'll know when it comes up because they'll be crying about a vast Bush/right-wing conspiracy to silence or punish them.

In a liberal worker's paradise like San Francisco, I can see them trying to get away with this and perhaps having some success giving the conditioning that occurs there.

I doubt you'd have as much luck in Virginia or Texas.

This is how we lose our rights, folks. One, tiny, incremental chip at a time. Chip away at the bedrock of our Rights and eventually all we will have left is a pile of dust that can support nothing.

And by then it will too late.

I only wonder how many innocent people will be targeted by this "crime control" measure.

If you happen to agree with the idea that the police should be allowed to enter your home on whim to check on your gun storage and possession, I want to hear from you on why such an intrusion is justified?

Think about it. Acceptance of such measures concern me greatly and do not bode well for our future.

New Jersey Screams over the Big 50

Sebastian points us to a PSH (pants shitting hysterics) article (thank SayUncle for introducing that term into my vocabulary) from Bryan Miller in New Jersey.

New Jersey is, of course, one of those states that doesn't trust their residents to do anything. They can't even pump their own gas. New Jersey is considered a lost cause by most gun rights advocates for that State's inability to see their citizens as responsible adults rather than poor proles who need to be coddled, guided and forced to do things the State feels is in their best interest.

Mr. Miller's latest screed takes the .50BMG rifle to task. Like on the Brady Blog, us rights advocates jump right in and correct him. He has replied and this is his latest reply:

Ha! I just love the ways you guys twist yourselves into agonizing positions to argue your minuscule silliness. You'll never learn. Your picayune arguments, always expressed with such deep hurt and anger, are of zero interest to the 99% of the population not weirdly obsessed with guns. But, I love 'em. Keep those cards and letters coming. Ha!

He seems to feel he hit a nerve and you can just sense the condescension flowing from him towards those beneath him. Us poor old redneck morons who just don't know any better and lack the brains to comprehend his big fancy words.

Here's my reply to Mr. Miller:

Dear Mr. Miller,

You seem to think that this is just about guns. On the surface, yes it is. We take our rights seriously and we will defend them.

You have made assertions about the .50BMG as if they were facts. We would like to see your evidence (as others have posted) that indicates anything you've said is true. So far, all I have seen is folks provided facts to the contrary. Is it not your duty as a journalist to report on facts? Apparently not.

To the bigger picture, why we get upset and annoyed with folks like you calling for a ban on guns like the .50BMG is because carried to its logical end, these incremental attacks chip away at our rights and freedoms.

You want to ban the Big 50 because of its potential for criminal use. To you, the possibility of misuse is enough to ban an object. If we banned any object that had the potential for criminal misuse, there would be no cars, knives or baseball bats in the hands of private citizens. All of these objects have been misused by citizens in criminal acts.

Our justice system operates on the principle that you are tried and convicted for the acts you commit, not the ones you might commit. By banning guns like the Big 50, you are placing the fear of potential misuse above the freedom of citizens. This type of thinking can be applied to any object, not just guns. If you carry that forward, you begin to restrict the actions and possession of object by individuals based on what they might do with them.

That's ok to you as long as those actions are ones you disapprove of. What happens when someone else decides something you have or participate in is now verboten? Such thinking cuts both ways. What will you do then?

Do you not see the danger in this? Such restricting based on potential rather than deed are not the acts of a free society that trusts its citizens. It is the act of a police state at best and murderous fascism at its worst. The ways such punishment of "potential misuse" can be abused should frighten anyone who believe in a free society.

Rights advocates such as myself believe in the idea you punish the person for what they do, not what they might do or what they do it with. The object did not make them commit their criminal act. It is always the person who makes the choice. A gun, bat or knife is merely the tool by which they did wrong with.

We believe in the rule of law applied fairly. We do not believe in the restricting or taking of legally owned property ex post facto. This goes against what a free society represents and how the law is supposed to function.

The acts of a minority, especially the LACK of acts involving the Big 50 above, should not serve to restrict the rights (to own the 50) and actions (to shoot it in a safe, law-abiding fashion) of the majority. That is the tail wagging the dog. Punish, not restrict and move on.

I will defend your rights to own things I may not like. If they are legally available (such as guns) and you aren't harming others with that property, I have no quarrel with you. If you commit a criminal act with such a thing, I will hold you responsible, not the thing. You are a free individual with the right to choose and act. I allow you the freedom to make bad choices. All I ask is you, the person, to be held responsible for them and not the object.

Too bad you don't believe in such freedom for me.

xxxxx
Silver Spring, MD

We'll see if he responds. Folks like Mr. Miller need to look at the bigger picture because someday it will be their rights, privileges or freedom on the line and then it won't be abstract anymore.