Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Everything Else / Ayup! It Is For Real!
« Last post by Taurian on Today at 10:52:47 AM »
Prisons, when used correctly, serve an important purpose of keeping violent criminals off the street and protecting the general population. But one prison in Chicago is allegedly operating less like an instrument of law enforcement, and more like a military installation.

The prison at Homan Square on the south side of Chicago is facing allegations of gross rights violations and abuses of power. According to the Guardian, the prison detains people without properly charging them with a crime, and denies them access to legal representation. Attorneys have reported that they were prevented from seeing their clients by prison staff, although Chicago police have vehemently denied these claims.

Everything Else / Net Neutrality is not Neutral
« Last post by Taurian on Today at 10:49:16 AM »
Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in favor of a controversial proposal to regulate the internet as a public utility, similar to telephone calls. The vote came as expected, down party lines with the three Democrats supporting and the two Republicans opposed. The decision is no surprise, but it leaves us with two questions that need to be answered: What does this mean, and where do we go from here?

Read the rest @
Two words; Incremental Encroachment.
Good video! Thanks for posting, CR!
Good Reading Material / Scope Rings - A Balancing Act
« Last post by Taurian on Today at 06:42:56 AM »
New article about scope rings, mounts, mountings, and tools @

You might find something useful.


Next at Six O'Clock, breaking news: L.A. DA asks state lawmakers to add microstamping to cement mixers.

Don't give 'em any ideas.

They got their mitts in enough stuff as it is.
And just a tiny bit of file or stone work can alter the stamp or remove it entirely. Crooks may be dumb but a lot of them are not stupid.
There will be an appeal to a higher court.
I find interesting the meaningless, feel-good posturing found in the following quote from the article to which we are linked:
"'The court’s ruling means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved, and California communities will be safer,' Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney and the author of the microstamping bill, said in a statement."
Mr. Feuer, please explain:
• How will "more gun solved" when anybody can retrieve someone else's fired cases, and "salt" them onto a crime scene? Do you think criminals won't do that?
• How will "more saved" when microstamping does nothing to keep a criminal from using the gun of his choice to kill an innocent victim?
• How will " safer" when microstamping does nothing to keep guns out of criminal hands?
Can you see it as clearly as I can:
"Hey, Rocco, we can't use dis roscoe to knock off de witness. It's got microstamping technology!"
"Jeeze, Harry, then I guess we're gonna hafta kidnap him, put his feet in cement, and send him off to sleep wit' de fishes."
Next at Six O'Clock, breaking news: L.A. DA asks state lawmakers to add microstamping to cement mixers.

California Cartridge-Microstamp Law Upheld in Gun Group Loss
by Edvard Pettersson

(Bloomberg) -- California’s ban on new semiautomatic handguns that don’t stamp identifying information on the cartridge was upheld by a U.S. judge in a major loss for gun-rights groups.

The law barring sales of handguns without the microstamping technology doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to buy specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.

“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.

California in 2013 became the first state to bar retailers from selling new models of semiautomatic handguns not equipped to imprint the weapon’s make, model and serial number on the cartridge when a bullet is fired. The statute was supported by law enforcement because it can help deter or solve crime.

Thursday’s ruling that the requirement doesn’t violate the Second Amendment will prompt other states to impose similar requirements, in particular because there’s wide popular support for ballistic fingerprinting, said Allison Anderman, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

“Microstamping is a really important tool for law enforcement,” Anderman said in a phone interview.

De Facto Ban

Calguns Foundation Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation argued that the requirement amounts to a de facto ban on sales of new semiautomatics because several manufacturers said they wouldn’t produce guns that included microstamp technology even if it meant their firearms couldn’t be sold in California, the most populous U.S. state.

About 1.5 million handguns were legally sold in California since opponents sued in 2009 to block the microstamping requirement, which according to Mueller’s ruling shows that the law doesn’t effectively ban the sale of firearms in the state.
The District of Columbia, the only other place in the U.S. to mandate microstamping, is set to begin enforcing that requirement next year, Anderman said.

The two gun rights groups said in a court filing Thursday that they will appeal the ruling by Mueller, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

‘Strong Case’

“The court’s reasoning, that California’s prohibition of most handguns doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment, is interesting,” Alan Gura, a lawyer for the groups, said Friday in an e-mail. “But we’re confident that we have a strong case on appeal.”

The case may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2008 upheld individuals’ right to own handguns, calling them the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

The 2008 high court ruling left room for gun-control backers to impose new rules to promote safety. California, New York and Maryland, among other states, enacted restrictions that U.S. gun manufacturers and retailers contend are intended to regulate their $14 billion industry out of business.

The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims.

“The court’s ruling means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved, and California communities will be safer,” Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney and the author of the microstamping bill, said in a statement.

The case is Pena v. Cid, 09-cv-01185, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento).
Everything Else / Re: Final voyage for Mr. Spock
« Last post by Robert Harvey on February 27, 2015, 06:45:46 PM »
the memory lingers on...
<a href="" target="_blank"></a>
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10