Boosting the Turnpike Speed Limits

Looks like they want to up the limit to 70mph, according to Capitol Ideas. The only problem here is that the main reason you can’t easily traverse Pennsylvania the long way in a short amount of time isn’t the 65mph speed limit (which no one pays attention to anyway), but the endless multi-mile long construction zones, where speed is reduced to 40mph and there is often no evidence of construction of any kind.

If the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wants to help people get from point A to point B faster in Pennsylvania, it would do better to more competently manage construction zones that it would to boost the speed limit. As a regular turnpike user, I’ll take the boosted speed limit, but I’d much prefer fewer and shorter construction zones.

So That’s Why My Gas Can Sucks

A few years ago I bought a gas can, who’s spout was a screaming ball of suck. Eventually it broke to a degree where it would not easily dispense gas. So I go to the WalMart looking for a new gas can, and every other gas can on the self also looks like a screaming ball of suck. When I was a kid, our gas can had a plain old spout, with a little cap on the end, and a vent, with another little cap on it. Undo both, and it just worked.

Apparently the reason gas cans suck is, like the same reason every other product that’s stopped working in a past few years sucks: light bulbs, toilets, dishwashing and laundry detergent, and washers and dryers… the list goes on: government bureaucrats.

What I want to know is how this stuff isn’t becoming major campaign issues. Is a guy like Mitt Romney so afraid of the environmentalists that he doesn’t want to stand up for the freedom to buy products that work? Do a majority of American want to buy shitty products based on questionable public good? So why no politicians using the fact that the government is ruining consumer products as a rallying cry to bring in Americans who are sick of it? Seems like a missed opportunity to me. I think a lot of Americans are hungry for a politician who will stand up for them against the bureaucrats, instead of standing up for the bureaucrats, and those who enable them, against the rest of us. I can get why someone might not want to embrace legalizing crack or heroin, where you’d likely only hear cheers from the Wookie contingent. But this seems like a no brainer.

Election 2012 Quote of the Day

Jennifer has a long post on how she feels about this election:

Romney is a long way from who I want in office.  But he’s not running for a single term.  He doesn’t want to piss the rest of us off before his re-election. I don’t think he’s stupid either.  He’ll pander, but I think we can be the people he panders to.  And the more crap the left throws at him, the less I dislike him.

My decision isn’t set. I may find myself in agreement before November.  But for now, I think the RINO is preferable.

I do not have high expectations of Romney, but he only needs to do a few things. My anxieties about him are my overall anxieties about the things Republican tend to do when they are in power. Romney, being an excellent vessel for the same people that George W. Bush was a vessel for, did a lot of things that pissed me off, but putting Roberts and Alito on the Court were not among them.

I can understand where Jennifer is coming from. The mandate that begins in 2014, absent intervention from the Court, creeps ever closer. Most of us are not better off than we were financially four years ago, myself included. Hell, I was better off ten years ago than now. While most of that would have happened no matter who was President, this President decided to stomp his foot on the accelerator on the road that takes us off the cliff. I don’t have high expectations of Romney, but I think on fiscal issues, I wouldn’t be surprised if he does better than many would give him credit for now. If he doesn’t? We can always give him the Dick Lugar treatment in 4 years.

Looking at Gary Johnson

Jonathan Adler over at Volokh posts about assessing Gary Johnson. I think it’s a damned shame this guy disappeared from politics for so long, because when the GOP field first revealed itself, he was my guy. His candidacy didn’t last long, and to be honest, I didn’t expect it to. Dropping off the political scene entirely for ten years is essentially an end to a political career. Nonetheless, Johnson was a very successful and popular Governor of New Mexico, which is a tough state to be a Republican in.

This election he’ll be running on the Libertarian ticket now, which essentially means he doesn’t stand a chance of doing anything save winning Obama another eight years. I know when I say things like that, it pisses off a lot of Libertarian folks, but that is reality. I agree he’s the best Libertarian candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime, in terms of being a mainstream politician with actual executive experience at the state level. Presumably since he’s been a successful two term Governor, he also knows how to fund raise. But there are unfortunately, not enough libertarians in this country to carry a candidate to victory in a three way race. I could get excited about Johnson if the Democrats were fielding centrist candidates, but a surging Libertarian movement through the Libertarian party is going to mean the left get several more decades to drive the country closer to a European-style social democracy, which over the not-so-long run is going to mean the country goes bankrupt, and people will be burning money for warmth long before that.

The only way Libertarians can win elections in a winner-takes-all system is to coalition within one of the major parties. If we had a parliamentary system, that would happen as part of the government. In our system, it happens in extra-governmental political parties. Ron Paul was never going to accomplish that. Gary Johnson could have ten years ago, but not in 2012. I’m still waiting for our White Buffalo; someone who can carry libertarian principles and still hold on to social conservatives in the GOP, or someone who can forge a new movement for libertarian ideas in the Democratic party. That would take courage from a species of man who is normally uncourageous. It would take leadership from a type of people who are poor leaders. It will also take a willingness of libertarian-leaning people to understand there aren’t enough of them to carry majorities without forming coalitions with other interests. Can it happen? I think it could. But not this election.

Tab Clearing: Humpday Edition

Tabs are getting pretty crowded, so I thought I’d go through some of the articles I’ve been collection. Late start on posting today, since I was up until 5AM doing an after-hours migration that took a lot longer than I anticipated, and I had already burned the bridge to get back:

E-bay is now allowing limited sales of gun parts. Disappointed about the 10+ round magazine restriction, but that’s probably rooted in them not wanting to monitor every sale, and train their staff on every state’s gun laws. Though, there are only, IIRC, 5 or six states that have magazine restrictions.

Knife rights are advancing in Georgia, with a state law to preempt local knife ordinances. Hey, knives are arms too. I think you can look to the folks at Knife Rights pushing this kind of preemption in other states as well. If you’re not a member of Knife Rights, you should join. I’ve talked to the folks behind this organization, and they really are trying to make things happen. It’s not just a fundraising setup. But they need members and funds badly, nonetheless.

The FBI wants internet companies to force every website to have a mandatory back door for wiretapping purposes. The FBI can go fsck themselves, as far as I’m concerned. This is an idea that is so monumentally stupid, it defies belief. Joe Huffman, also a tech guy, agrees. This would seriously compromise our national security. Why? Because backdoors are only a good idea until someone else gets the key, which makes them a stupid idea. Apparently the organization, founded by that great, honorable scoundrel, J. Edgar, hasn’t changed a bit. They don’t like that wiretapping on the Internet is difficult if not impossible. That’s a feature, guys, no a bug. My only worry is this is the kind of really stupid ass stuff that Republican’s eat up. The FBI is just more big government. F**k the FBI.

Extrano’s Alley look at whether Japan still has a low crime rate.

Clayton Cramer looks at how doing the right thing as a police officer will only get you fired. At least in New Jersey.

UPDATE: Forgot about Thirdpower, who is skeptical of the rumors of a Big Sis takeover by DHS, noting that it would be rough fighting a revolution only with .40S&W. I think it’s also wise to recall that the US Coast Guard is part of DHS, and they would be expected to go through a lot of ammo, and they do deploy .40S&W pistols.

Democrats Withdraw Trayvon Amendment

Apparently they know a losing issue when they see it. Our opponents will not be happy about this, which puts a big smile on my face. There is a gap between elites and ordinary people (who compose juries) when it comes to the issue of self-defense, and politicians forget that at their peril. Just recall how lop sided some of the votes have been in the past for Castle Doctrine.

Lugar is Out

No matter what else happens this election cycle, there are at least politicians out there who’s uppance has finally come. Dick Lugar can now be added to that list. There was never any universe where Hoosiers needed to tolerate being represented by a guy who didn’t even think enough of the Second Amendment to sign on to the Heller brief.

UPDATE: Scott Walker is on the verge of doing better than the entire Democratic field in a Democratic primary.

UPDATE: While President Obama has won the West Virginia Primary, he did lose at least 40% of the vote and 5 7 whole counties to Democratic challenger Keith Judd, Federal Inmate number 11593-051, serving a federal prison sentence of 17 and a half years for extortion in the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty of NRO: “I’m sure this night could have gone worse for Democrats, I’m just trying to think of how.”

The White House Throws Down

They are threatening to veto the Rehberg Amendment, which blocks ATF from implementing multiple sales reporting.

President Obama has threatened to veto this appropriations bill because, among other things, it limits the gun control authority of ATF.

Yes, bring it on. I’d prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!

“Preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from requiring licensed firearms dealers in four border States to report information on the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns to the same person would hamper efforts to address the problem of illegal gun trafficking along the Southwest Border and in Mexico,” the Executive Office of the President said in a statement on the legislation.

Clearly the White House believes this is good ground to fight us on. Let’s see what else Obama might threaten to veto in this election year.

Tenth Circuit Upholds Ban on Gun Possession by Illegal Aliens

This is going to be one of those posts where I shake the ant farm a bit, because I think this is one cases where the prejudices of the left and right will conspire to make a ridiculous mess out of something that should really be quite simple. But people being the way people are, I accept that this is a subject of great complexity, so let me play devil’s advocate for a bit.

I tend to think the right to bear arms, being fundamental, applies to all people, but with a federal judiciary that wants to drag the whole “INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY MEANS A WEAK RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!” meme forward, this is a less damaging opinion on the subject than I could have imagined.

If the right’s “central component,” as interpreted by Heller, 554 U.S. at 599, is to secure an individual’s ability to defend his home, business, or family (which often includes children who are American citizens), why exactly should all aliens who are not lawfully resident be left to the mercies of burglars and assailants? That must be at least one reason behind the wave of challenges to § 922(g)(5). But courts must defer to Congress as it lawfully exercises its constitutional power to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, or between lawful and unlawful aliens, and to ensure safety and order.

Why must the courts defer to Congress? What special insights does Congress have as to the constitutionality of laws? As offensive  as it may be to conservative populism, I’ve never been able to reconcile the idea of fundamental rights with the idea of rights of citizenship as it currently stands. For instance, this quote from the opinion, citing precedent in the 1950 case of Johnson v. Eisentrager:

The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization.

I think this is only true, because as a society, we’ve had a poor concept of rights. If a right is fundamental, then it is fundamental; it’s exercise cannot be infringed by any dictate of Congress, or the Executive, or the states (by the 14th Amendment). If a right is a citizenship right, rather than a natural one, such as voting, then it is not a true, inviolable natural right, but one exercised by a citizen, subject to the laws regarding citizenry.

I think whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of citizenship, or a fundamental natural right is a debate worth having. But to a large degree, the courts have already declared it a fundamental one. I happen to believe that is correct, and it should have consequences, conservative populism railing against illegal immigration, or liberal dogma railing against gun right be damned. One of those consequences is that all individuals have a right self-preservation, and thus a right to the tools necessary to protect those ends.

I think if you want to ban firearms possession, mere possession, from illegal aliens, the government should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, two things; that the possession was in furtherance of an unlawful act (e.g. that the illegal immigrant was here robbing banks, dealing drugs, etc) and that he did indeed possess the weapon in furtherance of those acts. That’s a far cry from, say, conducting an immigration raid of a business in a shitty neighborhood, and finding a pistol in the personal possession of one of the of the unlawful immigrants who was busted. I have no issues with prosecuting people who are here illegally and deporting them, but a fundamental right is a fundamental right, and the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right has consequences. One of those is that is a right of all people, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. If you want to prosecute someone for gun possession, then you need to prove their possession was in furtherance of an unlawful end, and not merely possessed for lawful self-protection.

2A Rally Today in Harrisburg

Today is the 7th Annual Rally held in Harrisburg. Unfortunately, this is the second year in a row I haven’t been there, and the past couple times before that turnout has been nothing to write home about. This year, is looks to be about 100 people. I’m probably going to get raked over the coals for this, but I question the value of continuing to do a rally like this on an annual basis if it can’t draw the kinds of numbers it needs to really make a big impression on politicians.

For example, yesterday there was a rally for property tax reform that looks to have drawn a similar sized crowd compared to some of our low years. How many do you have to draw before it’s just another day, with another crowd at the capitol, with another interest they are lobbying for? I don’t think it’s in our interests to be, well, just another interest. We’re the gun lobby, and when we turn out, it ought to be with enough numbers put the fear of god into politicians. Is the rally turning out the numbers needed to accomplish that? I have seem some pretty good turnout in Harrisburg on rally day, but it’s pretty variable from year to year, from what I’ve been able to tell from my own experience.

But that’s not to say I think nothing works with 2A Rally Day. I believe breaking up into groups and having everyone go visit their legislators and key committee people who are sitting on whatever bill we want that year, is quite valuable. I also believe there needs to be more activities that benefit gun owners, to inform them, and teach them how to be better activists for the issue. It would be beneficial to them to hear how the political process works, so they can understand how they fit into that picture. I believe that would be more beneficial than listening to political speeches for several hours. In short, I think the rally needs to be more about the gun owners than the politicians, and in my several years of attending the rally, I’ve felt that the reverse was more true.

Should it be annual? Or should it only happen when we have a bill we need moved? I’m not sure I have an opinion on this. But I think it’s a tough sell to get gun owners to take a day off work every year, drive to Harrisburg at the crack of dawn to be there in time, just to listen to political speeches for several hours. That’s a lot to ask of people every year.

That said, I don’t particularly think I have all the answers on this topic, so if anyone has suggestions or criticism, I’m all ears in the comments. I’m particularly interested in hearing from Illinoisans who are involved with planning iGOLD, which has never, in any of the pictures I’ve seen, had problems with low turnout.