The game of Commerce

DALLAS (Reuters) - A 65-year-old woman made it past a checkpoint and onto a flight at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on Wednesday with a revolver tucked away in her handbag, and was only stopped after the plane was called back to the gate, the airport said.

This post is probably going to be controversial.

Contrary to what news article commenters say ("Oh, if it makes us safe, it's okay!"), all of this TSA nonsense has nothing at all to do with real safety and everything to do with taxing citizens via fines and charges for accidentally breaking the law. It's the same as with New York City's gun laws; these laws are designed to generate revenue in the courts, not to stop badguys, and are only changed when enough of the non-criminal element get caught as to draw attention to the scheme. And despite what angry Americans may say about all of this and how evil it is, it was done with the consent of the populace.

There is no conspiracy, nor is there evil, when the very citizens who bitch about it let it come about in the first place. Just like in the game of Monopoly, if you want to sit at the table and play, you have to obey the rules; and that means that if your thimble lands on an arbitrary square that says "Go to Jail," than you send your piece to jail. It may be nonsensical, and no true crime was committed, but it's the rules. You land on the block, you have to pay a fare.

Back to the article, notice that the 65 year old woman was not only allowed through the checkpoint, but had already boarded the plane which was on its way to the runway. The planes were only turned around when somebody realized that a mistake was made. This very well could have added up to a Jack Bauer moment in the mind of some "security officer," but in the end it was a simple accounting error: the fare for carrying a handgun on a plane was not rendered. Disagree with me if you want, but the takeaway from this is that the goons in the blue shirts are not enforcing anti-constitutional gun laws as much as they are merely facilitating the collection of a tax -- the re-venuing of currency -- on compliant, consenting persons who asked for this very thing in the name of feeling secure.

"Did you see all the knives they caught that guy with? I'm glad they got him! I'll sleep soundly on my flight to El Paso knowing that that dangerous dude is behind bars!" Feeling safe is important to many people, and I don't blame them one bit. Feeling secure is a natural human desire, and getting it at someone else's expense can make it feel even more sweet. That's not the way I live by, but I've come to accept that that's the way it is, that the vast majority of the country feel that way, and the rules are made to suit them. When somebody's thimble ends up in the fictitious slammer, the other players say "HA!" and they play right past them, because that's how the game is played. Arguing against it is like trying to stop the sun.

Now, change the rules if it bothers you, sure. Good. Great. I'm all about it. But know that when you deny one funding stream, the government with find another, and will construct an organization tasked with taking up the collection. You say that marijuana should be legal? Cool beans, but there will need to be something given in kind because there are no free lunches. I'm on a hunch that pot will be legal in the next 5 or 10 years just as citizens want, and in return for this there will be an ever larger network of sex offender laws with an agency created to enforce it. Either that or, considering the sharply divided mindset of Americans, there will be crimes against the homeland used for government commerce. If you haven't noticed yet, the struggling economy is effecting the government as well, and the predictable reaction from it is to draw funds from areas both large and small, like SOPA for a large scale revenue generating function, and nitpicking citizens for random stuff like lightbulb disposal as an example of the small stuff.

Again, there are no free lunches, and there's nothing new under the sun. If you get what you want, you have to give something in kind. Choose wisely.

A snake has its rattle, a bee has its stripes. . . .

And some store owners "get it," as this sign captured in a photo by Ragin' Dave at Peace or Freedom shows. Giving notice is the godly thing to do.

Protection is personal

This morning I wanted to give a shout out to Ken, (Can I call you Ken? I feel like we need to be friends or drinking buddies now) aka Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, over his recent legal opinion on what constitutes "a good and sufficient reason" to carry a weapon to church, to wit:

Cuccinelli wrote that the self-defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

The statute Cole questioned is in the penal, or criminal code, section of state law, and because of it must be “strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of a citizen’s liberty,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Because of that, he said, “I conclude that lawfully carrying a firearm for self-defense and personal protection constitutes ‘a good and sufficient reason’” under the law.

Telling it like it is! Way to go! Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and. . . . .oh, wait. . . .well, I can't give you my sister; she's already taken by a Good ol' Boy with an affinity for having his own weapon pointed at him - but I promise you that if you stop by we will smash into the Stella Artois or Woodford Reserve, your choice.

Now, it should be known that this legal opinion is not codified law, but it might as well be. Virginia has made it known that they like to do things their own way - for better or for worse - and the weight of the state's Attorney General is on the side of gun owners on this one. Regardless, there are some (like you know who) who are very butt-hurt over the idea of someone discreetly carrying a modern self defense tool to church without accruing a $250 fine:

“Places of worship don’t need loaded guns brought into them,” Malte said. “The way Attorney General Cuccinelli states it, it looks like he’s giving an opening to guns in churches, and we oppose that.”

Well, Mr. Malte, to the best of my knowledge, churches don't have the funds these days to spend on spree-shooter forcefields to keep the lunatics out; so if you look at things in that regard, nothing has changed. Instead of having one or two churchgoers in the congregation carrying their heaters because they value their gift of life, there will now be like five. Why don't you jump up and down while holding your breath?

This opinion is common sense squared. There is simply no good cause in fining non-violent people for an act that hurts no one. Also, Ken Cuccinelli is my hero.

Stupidity begets a Claim

The University of Mary Washington is a "Gun Free Zone;" and despite their insistence that the campus is safe, people still get hurt there.

The thing about it is, when you say that a facility is safe, and prevent folks from protecting themselves under written code, you have a contract; anything that happens contrary to that contract opens you up to a claim.

"The suit says UMW creates "an illusion of campus security." The school's literature and other advertising material "emphasize safety and note the presence of campus police."

The university assumed responsibilities for the victim's safety because she was a full-time student who lived on campus, according to the lawsuit."

Yup. This is interesting to me because the whole purpose of "Gun Free Zones" is to avoid the bloodsucking lawyers coming forward in droves to sue for some sort of negligence. It seems to me that the opposite is true.

Now the very policy that UMW took to insulate itself from littigation will probably cost $10 million. I hope that poor girl gets every penny.

It's telling though that students willingly embrace this assinine policy; in the past, UMW students have made statements to the effect that security cameras in the parking garage would have prevented the attack on the victim because the cops would be able to later identify the rapist. Read that sentence again, because I'm not making it up. That's the sort of youth that Americans are sending to these campuses.

That still doesn't take away from the fact that if a corporate type entity makes the statement that you cannot provide for your own security, as the entity will provide that for you, than when they fail at their stated duty, they can and will get their asses sued. Common Law can be a bitch.

Gun rights in sheep's clothing

The old policy prohibited town employees, except police officers, from bringing firearms into town buildings or properties during working hours. The new policy bans weapons on town property unless they're legally permitted. It will allow employees to carry weapons in places where other residents could.

There is a whole lot in that paragraph to address.

First, the old "policy" exempted cops, of course, but more importantly barred town employees. Policy is not law; thus it was not unlawful for town employees to carry, but getting caught meant potentially getting fired. Citizens however, were not held accountable by this policy as they do not risk losing their job.

The new "policy" is where the meat is. Again, it's policy, not law. As the article describes it, this policy now allows everyone to carry as long as it's legally permitted. To be contentious, there is a big difference between legal and lawful; the latter meaning true law, and the former meaning color of law, or basically fiction.

In my opinion, this new policy under the guise of freedom and 2nd Amendment rights is really a dangerous way of making people think that they have more, when in fact it seems written to control people under color of law. A wolf in sheep's clothing, if you will. What it boils down to is that town employees want to carry without the worry of losing their job, which is understandable to say the least, but the method towards this end is to give up more of their rights - keeping in mind that the employees rights were not threatened before this new policy - in exchange for being "allowed" by the local government to carry.

In short, they're offering the same entity that discriminates against them more control in exchange for not discriminating. It's the same as telling the bully that steals your lunch money that you will clean his room every week if he doesn't steal your money. And I am sure that this is being haled as a gun owner's victory.

On the flip side, there is the typical resistance from the scared senseless folks that can't bear to see anyone armed and capable of protecting themselves, and they offer to the local news man the predictable "guns near kids" sacrifice. Also, do not miss the NRA, Pro-Gun spokesman mouthpiece giving his burnt offering of "this is going too far." Sometimes the Redcoats are dressed in Mossy Oak.

My point is to be careful of what you wish for. Everyone wants to be able to carry where they want; just be sure that you don't give away a right for a promise to be left alone.

Told ya so!

Well now, it would seem that my earlier thoughts on this stupidity came true, as Virginia has decided that as far as budget cuts go, lawn mowing is low hanging fruit.

To get this straight, if you live in one of the mentioned counties and you let your grass get too tall, the county now won't send "its agents or employees" to cut it for you because they aren't funded, but they will ask you to volunteer to do it for free! Awesome! Glad we cleared that up.

I'm sure they will still add the $100 fine, but I wonder if they will charge you "the cost and expenses . . . chargeable to and paid by the owner of such property and may be collected by the county as taxes and levies are collected?"

To that I say: Bring It On Bitches!!!!

My suburban kingdom is chock full of foreclosed on houses, which means the county has to cut all that grass as they are the title holder. If they can't even afford to pay govt' employees to do the key task in order to extort your hard earned Federal Reserve Notes via statutory fiat, they sure as hell can't afford to be penalized by John Q. Public for the same crime.

Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone. I wait patiently!

Assault with a deadly K-9

Sure, it was all an accident, and the police feel bad about siccing a dog on an innocent man, but tell me, do you think you or I would get off scott free without an aggravated assault charge, malicious wounding, or some other arbitrary stack of codes if one of us sicced a dog on the wrong person? A racoon knocks over your trash can, so you send Cujo out to investigate and he ends up peeling the scalp off of your neighbor: what do you think would happen?

How about some of that equal protection in and of the law!

Render unto Caesar

DC is still ticketing cars despite the meters being buried under snow.

Looking at it through the Common Law angle, the city is entitled to charge for parking whether the snow is there or not, although it is a dick thing to do. On the other hand, those who have shoveled their asses off because the city can't seem to clear the streets definitely have a claim to get that ticket money refunded.

Overall, those who live and thrive in the city ultimately agreed to this mess. It's Commerce.

Virginia gun bills

Many pro gun bills were passed out of the senate this week, with one of them being a bill that makes it so someone who has not begged the state for a CCW card can put a loaded firearm in a locked glovebox of their vehicle or boat.

Of course some lawyers (it's always the lawyers) blee-ee-eet blee-ee-ee-eet that "oh no, now criminals will keep a weapon in their car!"

By an 8-7 split lawmakers said okay to that measure despite concerns from staff attorneys, who said the bill would be welcome news for criminals.

"If they found out that they could carry their guns in a locked glove compartment, I promise you they will do that," said Senate Staff Attorney Steve Benjamin.

Be careful out their my fellow Virginians. Once this is signed into law, the criminals are going to finally come out of the woodwork and keep their guns in their car - but legally this time!

It's important to know that criminals strive to follow the law.

So if a criminal is not breaking the law, then there's no impact whatsoever. There is no reason for them to get pulled over, and having the gun locked in a glovebox is a better alternative then having it in their waistband. Not that they care about abiding by the law anyways. And if they're committing some sort of crime, and they get stopped by the police, well, then it doesn't really matter if the gun is legally locked up, they are still gonna get charged for it.

So does it really matter in regards to the criminal element? The better question is whether we should restrict the rights of millions of Virginians because of the thousand criminals who care less about the law or who they hurt? My answer is a big negative.

This also reinforces my strong opinion that at the genesis of every bad thing in America is a brigade of clueless lawyers. No offense to my lawyer readers, if I have any, but beavers build dams, and lawyers build laws. Rarely do either beavers or lawyers take the time to look down the creek and see the carnage that they are about to be responsible for.

Update: Great minds think alike. SailorCurt has up a similar post on the same subject over at The Sentinel. SailorCurt is on a roll these days!

Update: Here's more Virginia gun law stuff from The Sentinel, with VCDL president Philip Van Cleave fisking a silly anti-gun article. What I wanted to point out is this:

"In case anyone is worried about the volatile mix of alcohol and firearms, naysayers should know that the Senate bill requires guntoters to abstain and threatens them with - shudder! - misdemeanors if they don't."

Casting aside the ridiculous notion that misdemeanors are small potatoes, this seems to be the main thrust of the anti-gun hate for this bill nation wide.

"Guns and alcohol don't mix."

Then why is it that lawmakers insist on putting a footnote in these bills that allow cops to drink and carry? Anyone? Maybe it's because we're talking about cops, and not us mere mortal citizens. It's totally cool for a cop to throw back a few while armed, because hey, they might have to run out of Applebees in a hurry and arrest some Virginian in Olive Garden for having a glass of wine while open carrying. Oh, wait, that's actually legal.

Why this constant effort to create two classes of citizens? Cops get their powers from, From the citizenry. We are not subordinate to police officers. They cannot possess powers that we do not possess. So, they cannot have a free pass from the law because they cannot have something we cannot have. Common law, people.

Your daily dose of stupid

Haven't done one of these in awhile, but this morning I did a face palm when I read this:

“There should be one standard for applying for what is a constitutional right,” Timilty said.

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this sentence?

At issue here is the licensing of human beings who have unalienable rights by police chiefs in order for those human beings to exercise said rights to own, carry, and operate private property in the form of a firearm. Simple, no?

So by this douchebag's confession, it's yippy skippy for some police chief, endowed with powers privileged upon him or her from citizens, to issue unalienable rights with a new law? Exactly how does a police chief have the authority to give rights to citizens, when those citizens are the ones who give the authority to the police chiefs?

When I buy groceries, I own them. The groceries are my property. When I feed those groceries to my kids, I sure don't ask them for permission to own the groceries. Now I would never deny my kids food, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't ask permission to own things that I already know I own. It's simple commerce.

It's become very obvious that people in today's America no longer understand Common Law, nor the simple laws of commerce hewn from thousands and thousands of years of human interaction. When you own things, you do not ask permission to use those things - unless of course you have trusted them to someone else for whatever reason. I guess if people don't understand how they own things in the first place -- in this case rights -- then there is no way they could possibly understand trust. Somehow in the naked simplicity of all of this, where 5,000 years ago a caveman, literally, could do it, modern "advanced" society forgot what the hell was going on.

So now that people in the most powerful country on earth don't understand property and the ownership associated with it, I can't see where this knowledge will ever return unless a big ass meteor wipes out like 99% of the population and things start over. We're very happy these days that we don't live in mud huts and hunt with clubs like our ancient ancestors, but at least they knew what the hell was theirs.