Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Lindsey England

Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth




Well, I think ...




... it's an appropriate condition for her now.

When asked by judge Col. James Pohl whether England knew right from wrong, Denne said she had a compliant personality and tended to listen to authority figures.

On Monday, England told Pohl that she initially resisted taking part in the abuse at the Baghdad prison, but that she succumbed to peer pressure.

"I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to," she said.

This is not the image of an American Soldier.

This is the image of a monster.

I wonder if she named her child "Grendel"

UPDATE:
Judge throws out Abu Ghraib guilty plea
Lynndie England had made deal for shorter sentence, could face new trial


FORT HOOD, Texas - A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England’s guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying that he was not convinced that she knew that her actions were wrong at the time.

Col. James Pohl entered a plea of not guilty for England to a charge of conspiring with Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. to maltreat detainees at the Baghdad-area prison.

The mistrial for England, a 22-year-old reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photographs from the 2003 abuse scandal, means the case gets kicked back to the military equivalent of a grand-jury proceeding.

The charges that England had agreed to plead guilty to carried up to 11 years in prison. Prosecutors and the defense had reached an agreement that capped the sentence at a lesser punishment, the length of which was not released.

But Pohl's decision invalidates the plea deal.

This suggests that England will stand trial, and if found guilty will NOT be eligible for the reduced sentence for which her lawyer had negotiated.

On the other hand, it provides a defense which might make a difference in the finding in her case. If she is found to have 'diminished capacity', it could at least constitute extenuating circumstances. (Unless the basic training curriculum has changed since I was received at Fort Lewis in 1968, every soldier learns the difference between 'extenuating' and 'mitigating' circumstances. If accepted, either finding may result in a reduced sentence if she is found guilty.)

Also, if anyone in the military is forced to pay attention to the "tends to listen to authority figures" circumstance, that opens the door to prosecuting individuals higher up the chain of command than a staff sgt. (The commanding officer at Abu Graihab, a Bridadier General, was relieved of duty at that post; but she apparently received no further punishement -- other than, of course, that she doesn't have a career anymore.)

It is perhaps most galling that nobody between the on-duty NCO and the commanding officer has been charged with any crime. Dereliction of duty seems the most obvious. If these offenses were committed on a military site, and they were, the unit commander (Lieutenant, Captain or perhaps Major) should have been aware of them and should have either stopped them or reported them. To my personal knowledge, no unit commander has even been identified.

Mind you, I have no sympathy for terrorists. Call them insurgents, call them freedom fighters, call them anything you wish; I don't care what happens to them as long as it's eventually fatal. The world will be better off without them.

The few international agreements on the rules of war are careful to distinguish between soldiers and criminals. "Prisoners of War" are protected by international agreement; criminals are not. Such an agreement is the Geneva Convention. Or, as it is more formally known:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War


In Article 4, this agreement carefully defines legal combatants:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power >1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:>

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;(c) That of carrying arms openly;>

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

It's difficult to determine the legal status of the prisoners who were abused at Abu Ghraib. We don't know who they were. We don't know whether they were actually "Prisoners of War" as defined above. If they are among the current crop of 'insurgents', they clearly cannot demand respectful treatment under the Geneva Convention because they don't meet the requirements under Article 4. Specifically, the following conditions are not met:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly; style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica;">(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

All of this discussion of Geneva Convention, however, is beside the point.

These prisoners were not being coerced for immediate military purposed, such as to determine where they had hidden kidknapped civilians slated for torture or execution. The argument that they were being psychologically 'softened' for subsequent interrogation is not acceptable.

They were just being abused.

The thing is ... we just don't ACT that way. It's not the official policy of the United States of America, and most Americans are revolted by such callous conduct.

The defendents in this and associated legal cases have presented a variety of justifications. The most common one (and one which has been invalidated by the Nurenberg Trials of 1945) is that "we were following the orders of our superiors".

In fact, Specialist Charles Graner, one of the convicted Abu Ghraib defendents and the father of England's child, testified May 4, 2005, at England's trial:

Graner continues to argue that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were following orders from higher-ranking interrogators when they abused the detainees.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

In his testimony, Graner offers an alternative explanation for the horrible photograph presented earlier in this article:

Graner, who is serving a 10-year sentence for his role in the scandal, said from the stand that one of the central acts of the case — in which England appeared in a photo holding a naked prisoner on a leash — was a legitimate prison procedure.

Graner said he looped the leash around the prisoner’s shoulders as a way to coax him out of a cell, and that it slipped up around his neck. He said he asked England to hold the strap while he took photos that he could show to other guards later to teach them this prisoner-handling technique.

This is, of course, a transparent and pitiful lie.

On January 14, 2005, a jury found Graner guilty of nine out of ten counts stemming from his abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
This suggests that Graner has offered this lie for reasons other than his own defense. (He has none.) I suppose I should give him credit for retaining, against all expectations, some modicum of 'honor' (he has none) in that he is willing to lie in support of his former lover. I'm inclined to assume that Graner is a habitual liar, and since he has been proven to have no honor he lies out of mere habit.

So England is a monster, Graner is a monster and a liar, and the rest of the mob -- although some of them received much less burdensome sentences, being incarcerated for months rather than years -- were merely play bit-parts in this sad cinematography.


Ultimately, I've spent a lot of time researching and writing, and you've spend a lot of time reading, and we're no closer to understanding these warped yahoos than we were ten minutes ago.

I think I've given them more attention than they deserve. I only pursued this thread because of my convictions:
  • These are not American Soldiers; they're American Monsters
  • Any nation or culture will create monster. The rest of the nation or culture will be judged on how it deals with the monsters
  • While it is conceivable that there might be SOME justification for these egrigious actions, none has been believably presented
  • I am shocked. You are shocked. We want to believe that Americans wouldn't treat people this way without a good reason. We haven't been given a good reason.
  • Therefore, we reject these abherent members of our society, accept that there are no "
    • Do-Overs" in real life, and wish them similar treatment in the months and years of confinement which are their best expectation of a reward.
    Posted by at No comments:

    Monday, May 02, 2005

    MOVIES! - Claire Trevor

    Claire Trevor


    (photo courtesy NNBB.COM)

    I usually try to change my template at least once a week. If I've found any new websites particularly interesting, I add them to my sidebar. I also update "BOOKS" and "MOVIES" to reflect what I'm reading, and what I'm watching. I don't have TV (except one which is hooked up to both a VCR and a DVD, to watch movies) so there isn't any reason to indicate which television shows I watch. If there was, it would always be blank.

    But last weekend I watched "Stagecoach" for about the tenth time, and once again I was captivated by the character of Dallas, the blond B-girl with the proverbial heart of gold.

    She has always seemed familiar to me, and this time I actually looked her up in the Internet Movie Data Base to see who she was.

    The part was, of course, played by Claire Trevor (1910 - 2000). IMDB tells us:

    "A remarkable actress, Claire Trevor was famous for playing molls, floozies, broads, and was cast as the owner of a rowdy saloon in many a Western feature ..."


    Claire Trevor and John Wayne in "Stagecoach" (1939)

    Strangely enough, Stagecoach had a harder job than you would expect at the 1939 Academy Awards. Sure, it was nominated for Best Picture, but it was competing against "The Wizard of Oz", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Goodbye Mister Chips", "Of Mice and Men" and the winner "Gone With The Wind".

    It's no shame to lose against that kind of competition. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" didn't even receive a nomination.

    Thomas Mitchel (Doctor Josiah Boone) did win Best Supporting Actor; Director John Ford was nominated (but lost to Victor Fleming for "GWTH"); the movie also won the award for Best Editing. And the music score won an Academy Award. (Side note: in the last scene, in the bar at Lourdsburg, Ford used the repetitive chords by the piano player to increase the tension. The same song was used by the Hoagy Carmichael look-alike piano player in a later John Wayne movie, Howard Hawks' "El Dorado".)

    What did Claire Trevor get out of it? Nothing.

    Well, not THIS year.

    She was active in many more movies, and in 1948 she won the Academy Award for Best Actress In A Supporting Role as "Gaye Dawn" in the Humphrey Bogart "Key Largo", starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Lionel Barrymore and Edward G. Robinson.




    In that year, the Best Picture award was won by the British production of "Hamlet" (Directed by and starring Sir Laurence Olivier, who was nominated for Best Director and won Best Actor.)

    Key Largo's director, John Huston, also won Best Director and Best Screenplay ... for another little film he made that year: "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", also starring Bogart as the immortal Fred C. Dobbs. In that film, Walter Huston won Best Actor in a Supporting Role.

    Other than Claire Trevor's award, Key Largo wasn't even nominated for ANY other awards; nor did Bogart win any nominations that year.

    ("Bogey" received the Best Actor Academy Award for The African Queen (1951) and nomination for Casablanca (1942) and as Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny (1954), a film made when he was already seriously ill.")

    I'm frankly surprised to find that Claire Trevor played in two of my favorite movies (among, say, the top 20), and even more surprised that I didn't make the connection before.

    Bogart may have made bad movies; Wayne certainly did (not that I don't own more John Wayne movies than those featuring any other single acter.) I don't think John Huston or John Ford made many bad movies, but that's a matter of opinion and taste; you pretty much have to love Westerns to make that kind of statement.

    But Claire Trevor won her academy award in 1948; John Wayne had to wait until 1969, when he won Best Actor as Rooster Cogburn in "True Grit" only ten years before he died ... and 21 years before Trevor's death.



    Trevor's most memorable quote came not from a role, but from an interview:

    "Don't fall in love with your leading man. Of course, that's just what I did."
    And a few of them fell in love with her, too.




    Claire Trevor was paid $15,000 for her role in Stagecoach.
    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, May 01, 2005

    Carnival of Chordite #10 is UP!

    Resistance is futile!

    See it HERE!





    Includes link to the Cogito Ergo Geek piece on 'Firearm Tort Reform: Part II'

    (Hat Tip to Cowboy Blob for the art)
    Posted by at No comments:

    Wednesday, April 27, 2005

    Firearm Tort Reform: Part II

    If you're a regular reader, you may recall that last week (April 21) I commented on a new federal bill intended to protect firearms manufacturers from third-party lawsuits (not claiming the product was defective or misrepresented).

    I urged you to write your congressional representative, and included the full text of a letter which I had written to my congressman, Peter DeFazio. (D-OR)

    Today I received a reply from Mr. DeFazio, and I would like to share it with you:

    Thanks for your message supporting H.R. 800, legislation to protect firearms and ammunition manufacturers and sellers from liability in certain circumstances. I appreciate hearing from you.

    Like you, I oppose frivolous lawsuits whether they are against a government agency or a private entity. However, I have always been reluctant to limit citizen access to redress through the courts. I have opposed limiting liability on a wide-range of issues including limiting commercial or individual appeals of actions taken by the federal government around land use issues, prohibiting actions against manufacturers who knowingly sell defective products like the Ford Pinto, and restricting the ability to bring suit against securities brokers for negligence or fraud.

    I have carefully watched this issue develop. Thus far, two dozen cities and counties have filed suit against the firearms industry for law enforcement and public health expenses incurred from firearm injuries and deaths. A number of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and three state Supreme Courts have already rejected these lawsuits. I believe other courts will continue to find in favor of manufacturers. It doesn't make sense to hold manufacturers liable for the illegal use of a firearm anymore than it would to hold a car manufacturer liable for damage caused by a drunk driver or other improper use of an automobile.

    In the last Congress, the House passed similar legislation, H.R. 1037 by a vote of 285-140. I voted for the bill. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in the Senate after a number of controversial amendments were added to it. The House is expected to consider the bill in the near future and I intend to vote for it again this year.

    Again, thanks for your message. Please stay in touch.

    Rep.Peter DeFazio
    Fourth District, OREGON
    -------------------

    ****Please do not reply directly to this email******
    Please submit further correspondence from http://www.house.gov/writerep/


    I applaud Representative DeFazio for his boldly reasonable stand.

    This is a much more thoughtful reply than I had expected. Democrats, we are told, are knee-jerk anti-gun extremists who not only do not recognize the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm, but are all too ready to undercut this right by imposing draconian legislation against firearms, and even ammunition, manufacturers (cf: the recent California bill to require bullet manufacturers to engrave serial numbers on every bullet!)

    Mr. DeFazio, however, is a refreshing exception to this picture.

    I've been a registered democrat Republican since shortly after Bill Clinton was elected. (Actually, I was voting Republican for several years before I changed my registration, with the expectation that I could make a difference in Democratic primaries; but when Clinton introduced his-and-her egregious socialist health care proposal, I changed my registration immediately.) I've since voted the straight ticket with a few notable exceptions. DeFazio is one of those exceptions, because of his proven intergrity and willingness to cross the assumed 'party lines'.

    Here are just a few examples of why I consider DeFazio a Democrat worth voting for:

    * October 8, 2004: introduces HR5250, the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program
    * October 8, 2004: votes against exporting American jobs (HR4520)
    * August 3, 2003: releases report showing Medicare Drug Discout Cards provide little benefit to seniors.
    (You're right; I disagree with the president on this issue, and I am a senior)
    Sure, there are a lot of issues on which I disagree with my representative. Often, though, his positions are either those which I support or those about which I have no overwhelming opinion, either way.

    Until the Republicans can find and field a better candidate, I'll continue to vote for DeFazio.

    While I don't always agree with him, I'm glad that he at least listens.

    UPDATE:
    Correction to brain-typo;
    I've been a registered Republican since shortly after Bill Clinton was elected ....
    Thanx to WhiteFish for pointing out my errors. I can always depend on my readers to be smarter and more alert than I am.
    Posted by at 3 comments:

    Kalifornia: Bullet-coding scheme clears first political hurdle

    You've probably heard by now that California is preparing to implement a scheme which requires bullet manufacturers to stamp a serial number on EACH INDIVIDUAL BULLET.

    (Hat Tip to John H. of The Unofficial IPSC List)

    By James P. Sweeney
    COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

    3:11 p.m. April 26, 2005

    SACRAMENTO – A major new gun-control scheme – a numerical coding and tracking system for bullets – began moving through the Legislature Tuesday with heavyweight political support.

    Sponsored by Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the measure passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 4-2 vote after a brief hearing. In addition to Lockyer, the bill is co-authored by Senate Leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, and another prominent Democrat, Sen. Joe Dunn of Garden Grove.

    The prominent backing should carry the measure – SB 357 – through the Democrat-dominated Senate, leaving any legislative fight to the less-predictable Assembly.
    Senate Bill 357 ?!?!?!? (The irony is exquisite; the bill is unworkable.)

    Well, if it saves 'just one child' ... but of course, it won't.

    Among other reasons for rejecting it, this bill doesn't provide any preventative measures. It DOES (presumably) provide the ability for the police to remove a bullet from the corpse of a murder victim and track it to the killer

    Actually, were it to be enacted, it would allow the police, at best, to track it to the purchaser of the ammunition.

    This isn't necessarily the same thing as finding the murderer; we know already that criminals use stolen guns for crime more often than not. This only requires potential murderers to either (a) steal the ammunition as well as the gun, or (b) remove the bullet from the body of their victim. Chances are, they will choose option (a).

    No other state or country has ever attempted to set up a system to tag and track ammunition. Under Lockyer's proposal, the bullet or slug in each cartridge would be microstamped with a serial number during the manufacturing process. Ammunition would be packaged in boxes carrying the same code and the purchaser's identify would be recorded with the swipe of a driver's license.

    Randy Rossi, the attorney general's firearms specialist, said the system would not be much different than the coded tracking system in place for most consumer products, from cans of soda to Tic Tac breath mints.

    When the manufacturers of Tic Tac Breath Mints are required to stamp a serial number on each Tic Tac, I will accept this as a reasonable analogy.

    And Lockyer (Lockyear?) is perhaps best remembered as the man who took advantage of a 1989 firearms registration scheme imposed by his predecesor (Attorney General Dan Lundgren) upon Californians, and when he was elected California Attorney General ten years, later used the registration lists to confiscate the firearms trustingly documented by their naive owners. We won't soon see THAT scenario played out in Kalifornia!

    Initial testing has found the microscopic serial numbers still legible more than 90 percent of the time after a bullet is fired, Rossi said. Only handgun ammunition would be covered, and the legislation would not take effect until mid-2007.

    The California Police Chiefs Association and several law enforcement leaders embraced the measure Tuesday.

    "We have more than 1,000 murders every year in Los Angeles County, many of which go unsolved," said Los Angeles Assistant Sheriff Doyle Campbell.

    I don't know whether the 'microscopic serial numbers' would remain legible after having been fired, and impacting a solid target; but I'm pretty sure that the inability of the LA County Sheriff's Department to solve murders is as easily attributable to the culture of the county and the ineffeciency of the department as to any other cause. I have criticized the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in previous posts, and I see no reason to expect superior performance from the county if the mindset of Assistant Sheriff Campbell is a valid reflection of their mindset.

    Opponents already are focused on (California governer Arnold) Schwarzenegger. They distributed an April 25 letter to the governor from U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, an El Cajon Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, warning that the legislation raises national security concerns.

    ...

    But representatives of the firearms industry said the measure would force financially prohibitive changes to the high-volume, low-margin production of most ammunition.

    "Any manufacturer that attempts to comply with this would simply go bankrupt in the process," said Lawrence Keane of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute.

    Keane called the attorney general's estimate that coding would add less than a penny to the cost of each cartridge, "pure fantasy."

    In his letter, Hunter expressed "strong opposition" to the bill "because of the harmful impact it will have on the manufacturers of ammunition used by our nation's armed forces and law enforcement agencies."

    Probably the primary objection to this measure is the procedural expectation which has already been mentioned in this article:

    ... the bullet or slug in each cartridge would be microstamped with a serial number during the manufacturing process. Ammunition would be packaged in boxes carrying the same code and the purchaser's identify would be recorded with the swipe of a driver's license.
    This demonstrates a gross failure to understand the manufacturing process.
    First, the manufacturer of the bullet is often NOT the manufacturer of the complete cartridge. This would require the bullet maker to create batches of 50 bullets with the same serial number, and then 'someone' (either the bullet maker or the ammunition maker) would have to insure that all 50 bullets are of an acceptable quality to be included in a single box.

    Also, the ammuition maker would have to insure ... infallibly ... that all of these bullets, and ONLY these bullets with the same serial number, were used to assemble the complete cartridge. If one bullet was found to be unacceptable in quality, the entire box of loaded ammunition would have to be discarded. *(Actually, they would have to be destroyed.) Without a doubt, this would require the manufacturer to fill out a governmental form which attests and affirms that the ammunition had been destroyed.

    Remember, it only takes one imprefect bullet, or one imperfectly formed cartridge, to reject the entire batch ... of fifty cartridges.

    The ammunition manufacturer would have to initiate some kind of inspection process to insure that only those bullets with the same (microscopic) serial number were used to construct this box of ammunition. (Note that the actual language of the bill refers to "assembled ammunition" and 'bullets" interchangeably. This implies that each cartridge would be required to display a serial number corresponding with the serial number of the bullet.)


    Mass Production vs hand crafting: who loses?
    Usually, bullet makers run a continuous process, in accordance with the much-vaunted American invention of Mass Production, to create their product.

    Ammunition manufacturers follow the same technique; thousands or millions of rounds of ammunition are constructed every working day. Each round of ammunition (or 'cartidge') is assumed to be the same as any other round in that batch. They are constructed in 'batches' containing a large number of cartridges, and are dumped into a hopper or assembly line. The cartridges are packaged in a non-serial process, and the BATCH NUMBER will probably be stamped on the package.

    Assuming that each package (of 50 or less) of ammunition must be stamped with the unique serial number of every cartridge in the package, there are quality control measures which would make it impossible to economically control the serialization sub-process. If a single serial-stamped cartridge were to be inadvertantly ruined during the process, it would no longer be legally sufficent to dispose of the 'blemished' cartridge and continue the production process. Instead, the manufacturer would have to pull all of the cartridges in the blemished batch, and dispose of them as unmarketable. This would only be feasible if the serial number was stamped in a manner which would allow the inspectors to read the serial numbers of the individual bullets without disassembling the cartridge.
    The added cost to the manufacturing process would be astronomical. No manufacturer would be willing to sell ammunition assembled under these onerous requirements, because the cost would have to be passed on to the consumer and it would not be possible to absolutely GUARANTEE that the serial number of the bullet matched the serial number stamped on the package.



    Consequences of passage:
    Not only is this unacceptable to the purchaser of the ammunition, but it raises certain moral and legal questions.

    There is no guarantee that the process of stamping (engraving?) the serial number on the bullet would not unbalance the projectile to the degree that acceptable accuracy would be preserved.
    If someone were to use this inaccurate bullet in a self-defense situation, missed his attacker and instead struck an innocent bystander with the bullet, the 'someone' (perhaps a Law Enforcement Officer?) would perhaps fail to defend his/her self, and the result could conceivably be that the defender would be killed. Also, the bystander might be killed. And a murderer would be free to kill again.

    Who would be liable in this situation? Why, it would be the bullet maker, and the ammunition maker, because they knowingly created a defective product.

    UPDATE:
    I hadn't intended to present this as a realistic scenario. It's not likely that a 'blem' on the surface of a pistol bullet would cause such a wide variance in accuracy at self-defense distances. But it's fodder for the lawyers, and they wouldn't pass up any excuse, no matter how unreasonable, as grounds for a lawsuit.
    Also, the serial number isn't likely to be engraved on the side of the bullet, if only because the chances that the rifling would obscure it. And we have no idea how to carve an unique serial number (given the number of digits required to insure uniqueness) on the base of a soft-lead .22 caliber bullet.


    It's all about politics:
    Ignoring the practical usage of handguns, and the legal and moral considerations of their use, and also ignoring the economic considerations, this bill makes perfect sense. If you're a politician, and your only purpose is to make life difficult for your constituents, there's no reason why ammunition shouldn't cost 1000% more than it does today. There is no reason why lives shouldn't be lost because of the mandated inherent accuracy of ammunition which might be used for self defense. After all, if someone is (inevitibly) killed ... you know where to point the finger. That looks really good in the tabloids!

    Innocent Bystander Killed: Self-Defense Gun-Nut Deemed Responsible!

    Yeah, I'm liking that ... as long as I'm not the bystander, or the 'gun-nut' trying to protect himself or his family.

    History/Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the 1000% tax on Ammunition:
    This entire proposal is reminiscent of the bill (among others) presented by Daniel Patrick Moynihan to tax ammunition at 1000% of the original purchase price.

    Moynihan probably had no expectation that this bill would pass, but he proposed it anyway?

    Why?

    Because, brilliant man that he was (and an emminently quotable man), he had a blind spot where firearms were concerned. He was an agenda-driven way-far leftist who only had two colors in his spectrum: Black, and White. There were only Black guns in his world, and he wanted to impose his views on the whole world.

    Here is a partial list of anti-gun bills introduced into both the House and the Senate.

    These bills were introduced by Moynihan, were read twice, and were moved 'to committee' where they languished (rightly so) and were never voted on by the senate.
    Note that the bills all died in commitee, and the list is out of date since Moynihan has been dead for two years.
    (These bills were presented during the 106th Congress, in 1999. You can search for them here. Be sure that you specify that the search be conducted for the 106th Congress.)

    S. 152 Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY-D)- would increase the tax on handgun ammunition and impose special occupational tax and registration requirements on importers and manufactures of handgun ammunition. To the Committee on Finance.
    Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the excise tax on handgun ammunition. Provides for such additional taxes to be added to the general fund.Imposes a special (occupational) tax on importers and manufacturers of certain handgun ammunition for each place of business.

    S. 153 Sen. Moynihan- would prohibit the use of certain ammunition. To the Committee on the Judiciary.

    Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit the use of destructive ammunition, defined as any jacketed, hollow point projectile that may be used in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to produce, upon impact, sharp-tipped, barb-like projections that extend beyond the diameter of the unfired projectile.

    S. 154 Sen. Moynihan- A bill to amend title 18, US Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes; To the Committee on the Judiciary.

    Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to: (1) require each licensed importer and manufacturer of ammunition to maintain records of, and submit an annual report on, the importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition of ammunition, including the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition, as prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and (2) increase licensing fees for manufacturers of ammunition.

    Directs the Secretary to request the National Academy of Sciences to: (1) prepare a study of the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and (2) report to the Congress, not later than July 31, 1998(sic), on the potential for preventing crime by regulating or restricting the availability of ammunition

    S. 155 Sen. Moynihan- would require the collection and dissemination of information on injuries, death and family dissolution due to bullet-related violence; require the keeping of records with respect to dispositions of ammunition, and increase taxes on certain bullets. To the Committee on Finance.

    Title II: Increase in Excise Tax on Certain Bullets - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to set the excise tax rate on .25 and .32 caliber and nine millimeter ammunition at 1,000 percent, with an exemption for law enforcement agencies.

    S. 156 Sen. Moynihan- would prohibit the manufacture, transfer or importation of .25 cal., .32 cal. and 9 mm ammunition. To the Committee on the Judiciary.

    Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, importation, sale, or delivery of .25 or .32 caliber or nine millimeter ammunition, except for: (1) the use of the Federal Government or any State or local government; and (2) testing or experimenting authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. Imposes a licensing fee of $1,000 per year upon manufacturers and importers of .25 or .32 caliber or nine millimeter ammunition. Requires licensed importers and manufacturers to mark all .25 and .32 caliber and nine millimeter ammunition and packages containing such ammunition for distribution.

    Includes .25 and .32 caliber and nine millimeter ammunition as restricted ammunition, the use of which during the commission of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime carries a mandatory five-year prison term.


    S. 157 Sen. Moynihan- would tax 9 mm, .25 cal. and .32 cal. bullets at 1,000%. To the Committee on Finance.
    Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the excise tax on the sale of certain ammunition, except sales for law enforcement purposes.

    S. 158 Sen. Moynihan (D-NY)- would regulate the manufacture, importation and sale of ammunition capable of piercing police body armor. To the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Law Enforcement Officers Protection Amendment Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to expand the definition of "armor piercing ammunition" to include a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Secretary of the Treasury determines to be capable of penetrating body armor.

    Directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations based on standards to be developed for the uniform testing of projectiles to determine whether such projectiles are capable of penetrating National Institute of Justice Level II-A body armor.

    Authorizes appropriations for the Secretary and the Attorney General to develop and implement, and promulgate regulations for, performance standards for armor piercing ammunition.

    (See NOTES at the bottom of this article)


    Even though Moynihan had no expectations that these bills would pass committee, let alone be enacted, he had no compunctions about spending your tax dollars just to make his own private point.

    That's what we're seeing today in California. A bunch of monochrome maniacs want to spend their expensive time (paid for by their constituents) just to divert the attention of their opposing party from the real issues confronting their state.

    It's about Gray Davis, and their anger that he was deposed. It's about the 2nd Amendment, and the power it gives to the citizenry. It's about fear, and the special vulnerability which politicians feel when they consider that their constituents just won't LIKE the laws which are imposed upon them.

    The polilticians will say it's about crime control, and violence, but not everyone believes them.

    Basically, it's about controlling the people. The politicians could address the issue of VIOLENCE by dealing with social issues. But that's too difficult, and too expensive. Silly, when you think of it, that they're reluctant to spend your tax dollars to resolve the root causes of violence in this country. They're ready to spend money on socialist causes, but not on social causes of violence. Could it be that they don't want to stop the violance? Could it be that they just want to stop the private ownership of firearms? (Not because they are the instrument of violence, but because they are the instruments of civil insurrection.)

    NOTE:
    The references to the Moynihan bills cited above are sometimes contradictory. This may be because the original source for the list confused the text of the bills with the senate bill numbers. My advice is, when an apparent contradiction is found ... go with the Thomas citations which are distinguished by the italics typeface or the links in the "Latest Major Action".


    UPDATE:
    I've just read the text of the bill, and it's even worse than the newspapers described it:
    (UPDATE:
    the preceding sentence includes a link to the actual text of the bill, amended as of April 18, 2005.)


    (1) It doesn't apply to just 'bullets'; it applies to "handgun ammunition". This implies that the bullet and the 'ammunition' be 'serialized', and the serial numbers must match.

    (2) if you own ammuntion which is not 'serialized', you must dispose of it by July 1, 2007. You will NOT be reimbursed for the cost, if you are found to be in posession of ammunition which is not 'serialized' after that time, you are subject to confiscation, fine, and imprisonment.

    (3) Vendors of ammunition (and, we suppose, bullets) must be licensed, registered, and are subject to fine and imprisonment for each 50-round or less quantity of non-serialized ammunition they possess. That is to say, if you have 253 rounds of ammunition which is not serialized, you are liable to penalties for five 50-round quantities, plus another penalty for the extra 3 rounds.

    (4) The AG office will keep copies of, among other documents, "dealers' records of sales of firearms" (handguns)

    (5) The AG (and "peace officers", etc.) may keep records of sales of firearms which are not handguns under certain circumstances.

    (6) Even a person who is "loaned" a handgun must be registered with the AG. (The term "Loaned" is not defined.) Waiting periods apply to "loaned" handguns.

    (7) The Department of Justice (DOJ) may assess and collect an 'end-user-fee' not to exceed "one-half cent per round of ammunition or per bullet."

    (8) The DOJ may also apply an annual licensing fee of $50 (adjustable annually for inflation) per retail location against retailers of ammunition.

    (9) If YOU bring non-serialized ammunition into the state of California, you are liable to be sentenced to a period 'not exceeding' one year in prison, and a fine not exceeding $500.

    (10) .22 caliber rimfire ammunition IS included in the requirement to be 'serialized'

    (11) Bullets provided for reloading or handloading ARE included in the requirement to be 'serialized'.

    (12) The possession of non-serialized bullets or ammunition by the executor or administrator of any estate IS subject to to penalty, except under certain circumstances.

    (13) The serial number of the contained ammunition or bullets must be "uniquely identified" on the exterior of any container; ammunition or bullets of differing serial numbers must not be mixed with any container. No package or container shall be identified by the same unique manufacturer's serial number as any other package or continer. The term "container" is not defined. No exception is mentioned for auto-loader magazine, revolver cylinder, range-bag, or box containing reloaded ammunition. No exemption is mentioned for per-duration or actual usage of the ammuntion. No exemption is mentioned for reloaded ammunition.

    (14) Ammunition manufacturers must keep strict records of all serialized ammunition sold, lent or transferred in California for not less than 7 years. Failure to abide by state restrictions may result in a fine of not more than $10,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

    (15) The National Guard is specifically exempted from this bill. Law Enforcement Officers are NOT exempted, except:
    Possession by peace officers from other states during the discharge of their official duties in California.
    (16) Note again that the following phrase is frequently repeated in this bill:
    ... every 50 pieces or fewer of
    assembled ammunition or bullets used for reloading or handloading
    shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
    Posted by at 6 comments:

    Tuesday, April 26, 2005

    SPLAT!

    A week ago (April 19), I complained in my ANNOUNCEMENTS blog-entry that my sidebar had somehow been relegated to the footing.

    Frustration!

    I spent a lot of time emailing blogspot.com, and checking over my template carefully looking for some non-standard coding. Blogspot responded with a suggestion that I check my links for 'too long' text, and they even added a technical note to their HELP FAQ site.

    Last night I spent two hours going through my template, eventually deleting every link and script .. but the 'preview' function still showed the sidebar in the wrong place.

    Finally, I just corrected all of the errors I had found during the process, posted my latest blog (at 1am on a school night) and went to bed.

    Tonite, I posted a new entry and when I viewed the updated blog I found the sidebar back where it belonged.

    Success! Elation!

    I don't know which 'fix', among the dozens I applied, resolved the problem. And I don't care. I don't have to live with an ugly web page anymore (your opinion of the esthetic value of this blog may vary). I'm at least performing to my technical minimal standards, and that's a big load off my mind.

    BTW, if you see something you don't like about the format of the blog, please email me at the address presented at the foot of this page. Sure, I'll probably ignore your sage advice, but at least I would like to hear from you anyway. All too often the comments are sent by 'anonymous', which means even when I get feedback I don't know who it came from.

    My stats help; I use STATSCOUNTER (which reports, incidently, that this blog has been read over 4000 times since December 15, 2004) to keep track of who is reading this, and where they are coming from. The majority of the readers are in the USA, but there are many international readers: England, France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, The Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, and Canada are the countries which I see often. They are referred here by Yahoo, Google, Wadcutter, Publicola, Gullyborg / Carnival of Cordite, Cowboy Blob, and others. (See the LINKS on the sidebar).

    Looking at the STATSCOUNTER analysis of the visitor activity, I am surprised to learn that the search engines (Yahoo, Google, etc.) hit on this website for a wide variety of political, firearms-related and cultural issues. That's good. I don't want this to be a purely IPSC website, even though that was the original purpose.

    I even get fan mail.

    Here's a typical example:

    We heard that you are a Blog! Bullshiters logged on globally.
    We understand that you are one of the biggest!
    & who said that bigger isn't better!

    Okay, so that's the ONLY fan mail I've received. But you have to admit, it's typical. I'm expecting a lot more fan mail in the same vein, so ... start writing today.

    Hey, that fan mail is a GOOD thing, isn't it?
    Posted by at 1 comment:

    Shoot the lock off

    Remember the movies where the actors are always shooting the padlock off hasps, chained gates, treasure chests and other secured places and objects?

    According to the link from "DVCtracker" at Life, Liberty, etc. (purveyors of fine RKBA-related products such as pins, decals, bumper-stickers, cups, patches and shirts), it's not really that easy to do.

    You mean ... the Movies lie?
    Boy, are we surprised!

    The Box O' Truth is one of our favorite firearms-related surf-sites. My only complaint is that "Old_Painless" doesn't run enough 'experiments' to keep me amused with fresh material every day, so I admit I haven't stopped by to check out their website for a while. I was pleased to receive the Life, Liberty, Etc. newsletter yesterday which included a link to ...

    The Locks O' Truth

    Apparently, shooting a modern padlock with a pistol just doesn't get it done.

    Rifles ... maybe. But if you want to REALLY 'shoot the lock off', drag a 12-gauge slug round out of that beat-up cardboard box labelled "GUN STUFF" and go to town.




    Looks easy, doesn't it?
    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)