Slippery Slope

The issue of bump-fire stocks has created an entirely new aspect of the Second Amendment.

Whether a bump-fire stock (see below) obscures the fine line between  "semi-automatic fire" and "Full automatic fire" is either an excuse for the Federales to impose new restrictions on the (supposedly) impermeable Second Amendment,  or it's a "loophole" which law-abiding American Citizens are using to grandfather a new generation of (more or less) "AUTOMATIC WEAPONS" which had not been anticipated by previous law-makers; that is the question.

I personally have no use for a "Bump-Fire stock".  I'm not "flock-shooting" so I have no dog in this hunt.

But (if and) when the Federal Government arbitrarily decrees that a technological innovation "cleverly" eludes their published laws, they either need to change their laws (imposing the possibility of a "grandfather" effect on previously owned weapons) or they need to think whether their Federal mandate covers their ass.   

Which it does not.

If I read this clearly, Uncle Sam has three options; any of which will probably not meet their goal of keeping fully-automatic weapons out of the hands of law-abiding AMERICANS:

(1) Write a bunch of rules specific to "Bump Stocks" which will be obviated as soon as the firearms manufacturers change one tiny feature of their product:
(2) write some other rules which SPECIFICALLY deny the "Bump Stocks" by name;
(3) give it up, and let the manufacturers build whatever they want;  and ... by the way ... delete the "full automatic" rules currently in place.

My best guess is that none of these arbitrary measures well be adopted, or enacted as LAW, because people will always find a way.     It's better to just delete all the fully-automatic weapons laws and let Americans seek their own best protection. 

What ... gangsters don't already have machine guns?
Why shouldn't we?

Want to start a rebellion?

Impose the  most strict laws possible, then wait and see how many people disobey the law; you will have lawsuits up the ass trying to resist the natural instinct of otherwise law-abiding citizens who recognize a bad law when they see it.   Many people, otherwise law-abiding, will deliberately violate laws  which they believe stomp on the Constitutional Rights which we have all been assured will be protected by our elected representatives.

Gun Owners Foundation Submits Comments to ATF Over Proposed Bump Stock Ban: If this administration outlaws bump stocks, without regard for the limitations on ATF authority under federal law, it will put into place a slippery slope for future, anti-gun presidents. If ATF chooses to ignore the statutory definition of a machinegun [sic], and instead creates a new definition based on anything that “increases the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm, then far more is at risk than mere bump stocks.

Would-be lawmakers want to pay close attention to the Maverick personalities of the American Citizen.   Many people would deliberately disobey such ... a law if only to register their disgust at the distrust of their government to assume that owning a "questionable" firearm is equivalent to violent intentions.

I've been to war, and I didn't like it; but when it comes to American Constitutional Freedoms, any administrative official who tramples on our (narrowly defined) Rights must be prepared to discuss just WHY he doesn't trust the honor of the people who voted him into office.

That, which is specifically prohibited, is prohibited.
That which is not prohibited, is allowed.

vs:

That which is specifically allowed, is  allowed;
that which is not specifically allowed, is prohibited.

Which world-state would YOU prefer?

2nd Amendment Felonious?

Going for a Sunday drive?

Got a gun in your car?'

Under "certain circumstances" and in "some areas", you may be treated as if you were a felon if you're pulled over, and if a subsequent search of your car reveals that you are in possession of a gun.

Apparently, it doesn't matter that you don't have a criminal record, or that you are not a "fugitive", or that you have a Concealed Carry Permit..  All that matters is that you are someone who they don't know personally, and you are in possession of a firearm (see: Second Amendment).

I don't know more about the issue than you can learn from the link (below); but I know that it infringes on MY Constitutional Rights.  If I can be disarmed ... or arrested ... by police simply because I have a gun in my car, then my Second Amendment rights have just been abridged.  And the Constitution says that is "NOT OKAY!"

Curious ... I wonder if I can confiscate the firearms worn by the police who would search my automobile; certainly, if they can take my guns, why can't I take theirs?  They have no more rights than I do,  (Well, they have the force which they may impose upon me ... but is that American?)




Robinson v. US:

On July 24, Gun Owners and Gun Owners Foundation filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Robinson v. United States. Click -the link above - to read the brief. This brief urges the High Court to review a court of appeals decision that authorizes the police to search and disarm a gun owner at a traffic stop — even if the firearm is being lawfully carried under state law.    (emphasis added) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had ruled that the police are justified in treating anyone who may have a gun as if he were an armed and dangerous criminal — including drawing their guns, ordering him out of the car, and disarming him.

Our brief argued that lawful gun carriers actually are among the most trustworthy people in our society, and pose virtually no danger to the police. Not only did the Second Amendment’s framers trust gun owners, most state governments do as well, along with the overwhelming majority of police officers. It appears that it is only unelected, liberal federal judges distrust lawful gun owners. We explain that a citizen’s exercise of his Second Amendment rights to bear arms should not cause him to waive his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from searches and seizures of his property. Lastly, our brief dispelled the notion that firearms themselves are “inherently dangerous,” and that the lower court’s opinion will only serve to create problems between the police and gun owners during traffic stops.

I suggest that I have had more rounds aimed at me .. by weight and count ... from "Friendly Fire" than nine out of ten police have cringed under. I have had mornings in Viet Nam when I had to shake out my bed-tarp to rid it of shrapnel,  myself having spent my night in a tree.

It's not that policemen are wimps; it's just that they take incoming fire more personally.
But when the Democrats come after me because I have a gun in my car , even though I have a concealed carry permit (and even though I am protected by the Second Amendment), I begin to wonder just whose side they are on.

Certainly, they're not on MY side; they don't want me to have a gun because ... I don't know; they don't trust me to be armed and not a felon?  (Considering the recent legislation, which seems to provide more rights to convicted felons, I wonder if the Democrats like them more than Registered Republicans~!)

femiistas more more Maacho?

Criminals and the Guns They Carry

This 2015 article about crime guns contains some information which  you may find interesting.

It speaks to the caliber and conformation (eg: revolver vs pistol) of firearms commonly carried by criminals, and more interestingly describes the maintenance level which felons use in their weapons.

Most importantly, it speaks to the various actions which you might take (or not take) when confronted by an assailant .. whose gun may or may not be functinable.

Criminals and the Guns They Carry | Active Response Training:

“If you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.” Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said this over 2000 years ago in his book The Art of War It’s hardly new advice. Yet it is just as useful now as it was so many centuries ago.

Curiously, the article suggests that criminals are often not familiar with their weapons, to the point where they are not aware of basic maintenance procedures.   Some guns taken from felons have been found to be non-functional; that means, they don't work.

Don't assume, ever, that their weapons are not functional!

Concealed carry Driver

Police are just people; if you treat them with respect (and don't take it personally when they pull over for speeding) they will return your respect. 

So that's why I have never disrespected police for giving me speeding tickets .. which I quit doing!

I've talked before about carrying a weapon and being stopped by police for a traffic offense.   I'm going to repeat it because of the following published story from a policeman:

Purse Carry, CCW, and Police Interactions | Active Response Training: I do what I can to avoid treating CCW carriers with paranoia.  I work hard to ensure that should I stop a CCW licensee, the encounter goes positively for both of us.  After all, if the person I’m stopping has gone to the trouble of getting a CCW license, I know he doesn’t have a serious criminal record.   If the CCW carrier informs me that he or she is carrying, I know that the person is trying to obey our state’s LE notification law and probably isn’t trying to kill me.

After I was stopped (this wasn't the incident reported above), the police car sat behind me with red-lights flashing for two or three minutes while I fished out my drivers license Concealed Handgun License, and other identification cards ... plus my insurance form.   I did this because I knew the cop had called in the license plate, identified me as the owner, and ran a check on my name.   He knew I was (probably) carrying a gun and exercised proper diligence when he left the car and approached me.

When the cop finally got out ot the car, he had one hand on his pistol and the other hand held a flashlight.  I had already killed the engine and turned on the interior lights (it was a night-time stop) so he could see clearly that I had both hands on the steering wheel, I was holding my papers in my left hand, the window was rolled all the way down ... and I had not opened my door.

When he asked for license and insurance, I simply gave them to him while my right hand remained on the steering wheel.  I kept my face toward him, and wore a chagrined grin.   (Well, I WAS speeding .. I was going to the drug store to get a refill of pain medication for my Significant Other.)

I explained why I was hurrying, admitted that I exercised poor judgement, and asked him to please just write the ticket and let me go before the pharmacy closed.

Perhaps I wasn't as calm as I should have been, but he recognized the situation as I explained it to him and returned my papers with a simple caution to obey the speed limit; it's better to be slow returning home than to not return due to an accident.   Or something like that.

Abuse of Authority:

I know that there are "Bad Cops"; my distant cousin was married to one.  I never liked him, and after a few years he lost his job.  Not because of anything I said or did ... I was only 12 at the time.

My cousin divorced him, too, which was A Good Thing; I liked my cousin, but she wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

 One nice thing about shooting matches, folks just naturally assume that if you're carrying a gun at a shooting match, you're probably not a convicted felon.  Or a druggie. 

Road Trip from HELL!

:at September back in '69


I got drafted on a Wednesday, proposed to my College Sweetheart that night.  By telephone.

Three days later, we got married.

A couple of weeks later, I reported for duty, and saw my wife on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Then it got interesting:

After Basic Training and Infantry School, and NCO School, (graduated "top 5", as an E6 Staff Sergeant), and then it was time for my first posting: I went to Anniston, Alabama (Fort McClellan, home of WAC school and National Guard Basic Training) where I was a training officer.  I was allowed off-base housing, so I rented a private home from a local NCO who was on leave and I enjoyed connubial bliss with my wife (after paying her airplane ticket)

I would get off work at 1800, go jump in the community swimming pool; the neighbors complained that I usually jumped into the pool wearing my sweaty fatigues, but I ignored them.

Then I got a 3-week leave, plus travel time, so we decided to drive from Alabama to Oregon so we could save money.  Also, we had purchased a 1969 Ford Maverick ("The last car you can buy for less than $2000!") and we drove from Alabama to Oregon in three days ... taking turns driving, nonstop.

The car didn't have a radio, but I had bought an 8-track player and hot-wired it into the ignition system (lucky I didn't burn the car up!) so we listened to the only 3 8-track tapes I could find.  To this day, I cannot listen to Creedence Clearwater music without cringing.

We drove straight through from Alabama to Oregon in three days .. non-stop.  We took turns driving.

We stopped somewhere in Texas, when we just didn't have the energy to continue.  Just ... pulled off the road, turned off the car, and went to sleep.   We were awakened by a state trooper (whatever they call them in Texas), who was concerned that we had both died.  He had a helluva time waking us up!

We explained the situation to him, and he looked at us as if we were crazy people.  At that point, he was correct.  But "we were young, and sure to have our way", so we were advised to pull further off the road and kindly suggested that we "get a room".

My wife was asleep, and I was driving, when I passed a sign which said:

GRAND CANYON ... NEXT EXIT

I thought, this may be my last chance to see the Grand Canyon.  But instead of waking her up and discussing whether we should take the scenic detour, I just ... drove on.   I've always regretted that decision.

Finally we got to California, hit the I5 Freeway north, and got to Oregon where we could see our families sometime in the late afternoon after we-didn't-know-how-many-days of driving.

A few days later I reported for duty at my home town (Pendleton, Oregon) after visiting my parents.  gave the car keys to my wife, went to the Greyhound Station, and was eventually (after a year in-country as a training NCO in Georgia) assigned to my next duty station.  It was, not surprisingly, the First Infantry Division in Dian, South Vietnam.

But while I was serving in Viet Nam, I got a letter from my wife.  She and my sister were touring .. somewhere touristy ... and while backing out of the parking lot they bumped into a tree and dented the rear of that damned cheap-ass Maverick.

The mechanics had to replace the trunk lid.  It had folded up like .. well, a Campbell's Soup can would have been embarrassed.

Two years later, after I was back home, I was entering a freeway ramp (in the Maverick) when the hood suddenly just ... popped up!  Apparently, the double-lock hadn't functioned, and a gust of wind just flung it up in my face.

We got rid of the Maverick.

I got a really good trade-in deal in a well-used 1965 Chevrolet Corvair Convertible ... with custom-build dual 2-barrel carburetors!   The fabric roof leaked (especially after our neighbors cut the fabric roof to steal BUPKIS from the glove compartment) and the dual-carburetors were never tuned because no competent mechanic would touch them.

But damn!  It LOOKED FINE, especially in the summer when it wasn't raining.

Did I mention I live in Oregon .. the center of the Great Pacific Northwet?

Man, when it comes to cars, I sure can pick 'em!

Biden Confirms Suspicions; He IS A Dork

Dopey Joe Biden confirms all suspicions that he is, always has been, and remains as dumb as a stump.  (For any stumps which may be reading this, I apologize for the comparison, which denigrates the integrity and intellect of actual native-born stumps ... which are the remains of dead trees, as opposed to the remains of dead political careers.)

(See: "DORK")

"My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be President of the United States, I could be, I could be Vice President!" said Vice President Joe Biden.  [source]

 Here, ex-vice president Biden blandly adopts an opinion and immediately refuses to justify his decision:

Biden Gave A Lengthy Endorsement Of Kavanaugh Accuser Until One Question Caused Him To Walk Away | The Daily Caller: Former Vice President Joe Biden emphatically supported Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Monday night, faltering only when a reporter asked him about the credibility of a claim made over 35 years ago. “What I’m going to do is I’m not going to answer any more questions,” Biden said, deflecting a reporter’s question asking whether it was significant that the assault claim refers to an incident that allegedly occurred when Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was 17 years old. “I’d be happy to talk about Ireland,” Biden added during his remarks to a group of reporters at Irish ambassador to the U.S. Dan Mulhall’s residence.

(But he's a master at changing the subject when asked questions which would require him to think.)

Perhaps Biden's most important contribution to American Society is that he provides material for late-night talk-show hosts.

Posting about the Second Amendent

Since December of 1998, I have written 4513 drafts (and actually published 4056 of them) posts on this website in an attempt to present the Shooting Sports as a wholesome, widely accepted exemplar of the freedoms which America has protected in the Constitution..

As of this date, there are still more writers who condemn the use of firearms for sport, defense and hunting than those who accept this Constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT!

I do not know how Americans seem so ready to turn their backs on a Right which seemed so important to the Founding Fathers.  I can only presume that America has become so smug about ourselves that they don't think we have anyone against whom we need to defend ourselves.

Dumbshits:
we are perhaps probably the most hated country in the world ... certainly in the Middle East!
Because we think all men are created equal, and we give them guns to prove it.

It seems trite to assume that the "911" events were dismissed:  Did nobody notice that if our country was not essentially disarmed, those terrible deaths of Americans would not have occurred if (for example) the passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 had been armed .. or even if the odds were that they might have been armed?   They couldn't defend themselves against box cutters!

Today, the 911 tragedy is nothing more than a "Trip Ticket Tour". where for $100 (more or less) you can see all the sites where Americans died. 

Is this what our country has come to?  A place where you can relive the places where innocent Americans have died?  I wait with bated breath for a tour where you can visited the incinerated bodies of Americans who died upon that day.

Not.   That's disgusting!

It seems to me that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

(Not an original observation, I agree.)

It's about preserving our freedom .. preserving our freedom from a tyrannical government (which was the original priority of our ForeFathers), but also from those outsiders who resent our freedoms and who would seek to undermine them.

Not all of which are aliens;  many native born Americans are fearful of those Americans who own and use firearms.   (Or box cutters.)

They think we are wild men. 

They assume that we are fearful and would use our guns irresponsibly.  They do not accept that we think we are at least as sane as they are, and perhaps more responsible because we are prepared to use our meager firepower to defend those who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves.

There is a story ( which I personally disbelieve) that at the onset of WWII, someone in the Japanese  High Command was presented with the suggestion that Japan should open the festivities by invading America's.   The senor Japanese general waived the plan on the basis that: "Oh, HELL no!  Americans are all armed, and we would face armed Americans behind every rock and tree with guns!"

Aprophycal, to be sure; but not entirely unrealistic.

The might of America  is with its laymen.  
Those gun-nuts (and the Second Amendment) who are so despised by the Liberal Left are perhaps our First line of Defense.

Forget the U.S. Army, and the National Guard.   
They are all-too-organized, and everyone has access to their names and addresses.  And besides, they are not "on the scene" when violence  begins, when it is disorganized, when they have not yet established full control over their victims.

But their purported victims are there, and if prepared ... they can dismantle even a planned attack if they have the will, the conviction and the firepower


No, America's "First Freedom" (however you may despise them) are the individual; the man with a gun, who has no qualms about defending his country ... and is likely to be the man who is most effective.

He has no name.  He exists on no roster of "Military Member".  He's just Joe Schmo from Tipalo.

He is The Minute Man; the guy who our forefathers expected to defend his country 200 years ago, ... not because he should, but because he can.

You may not like him; maybe stuffing a chaw in his cheek; or he may be a Corporate CEO; but he's an American with a gun, and someone who knows how (and when) to use it.

If and when we really really, really need him, he's there.

Like it or not.

Information, or Salesmanship?

I like the concept of a website which promotes firearms as a means of self-defense.

I worry that some seem to be more concerned with promotion of their website, than they are for defense of our civil rights.

Sometimes it's a little confusing; but perhaps I've missed a few issues.

Obama ...: we gave him EVERYTHING!

It's not just you.

Two Alpha?

Tattoo!

When you really, really need to shoot somebody,  it ought to leave a mark for the NEXT G-friend to wonder  WTF???

Police: Woman shot local man in the face as he choked her: During the investigation officers discovered Hampton and woman, who are in some sort of relationship or possibly related, were fighting when the man began to choke the woman, Waco police Sgt. Patrick Swanton said. During the struggle, Hampton pulled out a gun, but the woman was able to point it toward him and shoot him, Swanton said. He was taken to a local hospital.

Why We Fought The Britsh

1984 has reached No-longer-so-Great Britain.

U.K. Police Urge Citizens To Report Neighbors For 'Offensive' Speech:

English police are now calling on citizens to report hate incidents. Reporting friends and neighbors to the police has terrible historical connotation, and for good reason. It is legitimate fascism. Timid citizenries are easy to control — fear that even a coworker could file a report to the police can keep people in check.

Thanks to Joe's Gulch for the heads-up and the link; he's a nice man, but he just doesn't HATE enough to give this report the attention it deserves.

The only way the world could possibly be negatively affected by this sort of societal incursions on the First Amendment is if the good folks at GOOGLE agreed with them!

Oh ... wait .....

Hello?  IS there anyone there? 

>TAP TAP TAP<   Is This Thing On?

All they know is what they read in the papers

The Trace references an independent study which purports to prove ... statistically ... that private individuals who legally carry guns do not reduce crime. (see below the fold for detail)

The thing is, crimes which do not occur because of legally carried guns are rarely reported.

Woman Waiting For Her Commute:
During the bitter winter of the year in which Oregon permitted concealed carry, a lady friend of mine was waiting in the transit station to catch her ride into Portland.  She was approached by a trio of young men who threatened her and demanded her purse.  She slipped her hand into the pocket of her overcoat ... and the thugs backed off.   

They said (words to the effect) "Oh no, you don't gotta pull a gun on us, lady.   We're out of here!"

And they left. 
A few minutes later, her bus arrived and she went to her job.

Did she report the attempted mugging?   No, she did not.   She was cold, worried more about getting to work on time, and the crime (of "Threatening", if nothing else) was never reported.

Man Leaving The Office:
Another friend was threatened in the parking lot of the Corporate Headquarters building where he and I both worked ... this was just after he got off work.    He had stayed late to finish a product, and he was the only employee in the parking lot. 

Again, multiple assailants ... but this time he had a pistol in a concealed carry holster; he pulled the gun just far enough to display it, and the gang ran.

He unlocked his car and went home to dinner.  No report was filed with the police, the incident never appeared in the newspapers. 

Just life in The City.

I worked for several years in an educational institution.  I carried every day.  Even though I had a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) it was not legal for me to bring a firearm into the buildings, although it was legal for me to (concealed) carry on campus.  (NOTE: Oregon does not recognize any other state's handgun license; we are that weird.)

Nobody knew I was armed, and I kept the pistol in a locked desk drawer during the day; I only carried it between the parking lot and my office.   And I was never assaulted during that most dangerous time of the day ... on the way to and from work.

If I HAD been approached by someone who threatened me, I would have lost my job by defending myself with a gun; it was obviously a violation of my "Terms of Employment" for me to possess a firearm in any building on campus.     I wouldn't have reported it, either.

In Oregon, CHL folks are the Red-Headed Stepchild; nobody recognizes us, nobody likes us, so we just keep a low profile ... at least, in our professional life.

I suspect many CHL folks around the country are much the same way.  We don't advertise.
And i wouldn't even be writing this, if I wasn't retired.  Now Oregon laws on CHL have been updated just a little bit, but I still can't carry inside of any building on any campus in Oregon.


BELOW THE FOLD: CHL does not reduce crime

ATTEMPT to make normal security measures appear paranoid

The press works its wondrous ways to skew present the news.

WATCH: Security Steps in as Parkland Victim's Father Walks Up Behind Kavanaugh | Breitbart: During Tuesday’s confirmation hearings, security jumped into action as a Parkland shooting victim’s father walked up behind Brett Kavanaugh. Video of the incident shows that Kavanaugh had risen from seat and turned to his left to walk out of the chamber when Fred Guttenberg approached from behind. Guttenberg, the father of Jaime Gutternberg–who was slain in the Feb. 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting–reached out his hand toward Kavanaugh’s and said something, at which point Kavanaugh began to turn toward him and security intervened.

The reportage skewed the news .. and over-reported the incident ... to insinuate that Kavanaugh's security over-reacted.   In fact, no high-profile politician (or his security detail) will willingly UNDER-react to an unidentified person approaching their charge without being thoroughly vetted (and often searched).

I look back at the American Political Figures against whom assassinations were attempted (or completed), but most especially to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,  whose assassination was successfully completed.   I did not agree with the nuances of his politics, but I admired the man for his integrity.

As we see new candidates for office, we also see those who would threaten their physical security, in an effort to dissuade them from seeking political office.

 I think this is the lowest level to which any politically aware citizen can descend.  If you don't like his/her politics, campaign against him and make your objections part of the public dialogue.

When animals sink to political assassinations, then they reveal themselves for the cultural dupes that they are.

The dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats continues to be not only NON-productive, but COUNTER-Productive!

On the other hand, if the two-party was not intrinsically divisive, how could you tell the difference between them?

Too stoopid to find a job, turns to a life of crime, f**ks that up too

I knew holdup men turned to crime because they were too stupid to hold a job, but surely if you're going to hold up a store you should hold onto your gun!

For archival purposes ... if the link dies, the video may survive; here it is:

and now, for something REALLY IMPORTANT!

This is the kind of news we like to see pop up in our inbasket:

Just in time for hunters preparing for the upcoming seasons, a new public shooting range in Grand Traverse County is now open. 

New shooting range open in Grand Traverse County | WPBN: A view downrange at the Grand Traverse shooting range in Grand Traverse County, Michigan. The range opened in August 2018 and offers accessible parking and pathways to the shooting stations and target retrievals. Photo Courtesy: DNR

Justifiable Self Defense! ( but still can't own a gun)

When self defense is a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away.

Sometimes, defending your life is more important than obeying the law.  And even felons know this.

Fort Smith Woman Ruled Justified For Deadly Shooting In 2017, Now Facing Charges For Criminal Possession Of A Firearm | Fort Smith/Fayetteville News | 5newsonline KFSM 5NEWS: FORT SMITH (KFSM) - A Fort Smith woman has been found justified in using self-defense, on Thursday (Aug. 30), in a deadly shooting that happened in December 2017. The woman will now face charges for possession of a firearm after pleading to felony drug charges in February 2017.

It seems bizarre to acknowledge that a woman can be congratulated for saving her own life (when the police could not defend her), and then to turn around and arrest her for illegal possession of a firearm.

Sometimes, the police get all caught up in laws, and forget rights. 
Among them the right to self-defense when attacked.

Yes, felons forfeit their rights.

Yes, it's complicated.

I fully expect that the woman in question ... who defended her life with a firearm which she was not legally "permitted" to own one ... will be released with "Time Served" and no further legal entanglement.   After all, where were the police when she was attacked? 

 ("Minutes Away")

Answer: they were waiting for a "Crime Scene", where they would collect evidence, search for "perpetrators", and prepare to testify at the trial of what would here seem to be an innocent victim.

Anything more than a release without bond would be an obvious obstruction of justice ... and justice has no relationship to "Law".  After all, where were the police when she was fighting for her life?

WASPS!

Last month I found a wasp nest on the cross-bar of my patio gate.  I bought some wasp spray (it was anemic ... didn't "shoot under pressure" as advertised) but it killed them.

There were still wasps around, hanging near the trash cans by the garage entrance.  But no nests found.

Today, loading groceries in the back of the Explorer, I notice there was a very advanced, very active wasp nest between the rear hatch and the body of the car.

I bought a new can of wasp spray.

Tonight, after dark, I sprayed the HELL out of the new wasp nest .. then closed the hatch.  Tomorrow will tell the story, whether or not I've eliminated the vermin.

FUNNY THING IS .... I couldn't see any signs of a wasp nest in or near the trash cans .. which are plastic, and always closed except when I'm emptying trash into them or the garbage man picks them up.   The trash cans attract insects, and while they're always closed tight ... the aroma seems to draw wasps.

I'll check tomorrow to confirm the latest "Explorer" next has all died .. and remove the dead nest. 

And I'll perform a more rigorous check near the garbage cans by the entrance to the garage.

 (I don't park inside the garage... the Damned Old Ford sleeps in the driveway, rain or shine.)
\
Two weeks ago, I had observed wasps swarming around the outside rear-view mirror on the Ford; I used the hose to inundate the hidden next, and assumed that this would dissuade them from nesting around my black (warm) car.  I was wrong.

You might consider that this is the nesting season for wasps, and check for swarms on your property.  If you see more than 2 or 3 wasps ... there's a nest.  They're not terribly aggressive, but they will swarm you if you wander near their nest, so if you see them, be sure to check in nooks and crannies near where you see them.

They do become aggressive when you near their nest.  This is the second nest I've found within 15 feet of the entrance to my home.

Spray the nest, then distroy the nest with water pressure from your hose ... then crush and dispose of the next.

Let's be careful out there.

The NYT would rather see kids shot by invaders than to arm teachers.

The opinion column of the New York Times is always good for a "WTF?" moment.
(SEE: Below The Fold)

Despite the recent (?) spate of school shootings, NYT thinks that arming teachers would:

"... contribute to a climate of fear in schools and note that study after study equates more guns with more injuries and deaths."

It's significant that the wise editors of the NYT use the term "contribute to the climate of fear", which tacitly acknowledges that a "climate of fear" already exists in schools, after reports of predators attacking schoolchildren around the country.

When the only one with a gun is a predator,  it's difficult to imagine how an armed defender could make any student more fearful .... unless the NYT is willing to encourage students to "Pay No Attention To The Man Shooting Your Friends".    Apparently, students should not trust their teachers, but they should trust interlopers.

(Among interlopers, I'm including the sworn police officer who received reports of armed attacks on innocents, and heard the shots fired, but hid in his  police  car under a bridge until the shooting was over, rather than to risk his life defending the public.)

I'm sure there are statistics which report the number of educators who turn on their students with intentions of mass murder.

Oh, I looked it up.  I found ten reports of teachers killing students: worldwide!

Three used firearms    The rest used knives, or various forms of strangulation.   Apparently, when teachers run amok, they use the tools at hand ... some of which are more gruesome than others.  (Many of the reports note an "interpersonal" relationship; the teacher was banging  having an affair-gone-wrong with the student.)

I haven't found any reports of Mister Jones or Miss Smith Niner-ing their Junior High School class on Civics in Dubeque Iowa.

THE FOLD:

California Prop 65

More California Scheming?

Due to California laws, products sold in that state need to meet "product safety regulations" ... even if those laws don't logically apply to that product.

Bond Arms Firearms Cause CANCER... According to California Prop 65 - The Firearm Blog:

 After August 30th, Bond Arms products will NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE (including guns, barrels, holsters, accessories, apparel, etc.) in the state of California due to Prop 65, which makes all manufacturers label products that could have a chemical that could cause cancer or birth defects, even though it won’t.

(link added)

As a blogger, I'm beginning to LOVE California!   Their laws and regulations are quite as nonsensical and inane as are those of New Jersey!

Oh ... and "Bizarre", too!

    Comparing California and New Jersey;

California has the most lawyers of any state in the union; New Jersey has the most toxic landfills.    Why?

 New Jersey won the coin toss.

Holy Cat Suit, Batman!

Isn't watching Tennis boring enough?

‘You have to respect the game’: French Open bosses ban Serena Williams’ skin-tight catsuit — RT Sport News: French Tennis Federation President Bernard Giudicelli says next year’s French Open at Roland Garros tournament will toughen up its dress code – prohibiting form-fitting catsuits such as those Serena Williams donned this year. ‘Like a queen from Wakanda’: Serena Williams says ‘superhero’ catsuit helped her to victory In an interview with Tennis Magazine, Giudicelli emphasized that eye-catching, figure-hugging outfits will no longer be allowed at the second Grand Slam tournament of the year. “I believe we have sometimes gone too far,” he said. “Serena’s outfit this year, for example, would no longer be accepted. You have to respect the game and the place.”

No I don't.   But I DO respect Serena Williams!