"Generating New Revenue Streams" – This is the problem with modern policing….

Police Car“Generating New Revenue Streams” – This is the problem with modern policing. Police departments should not be about generating revenue. Whatever happened to protecting and serving the public? Police departments should be about maintaining peace and safety in the community, not raising money.

The problem with police departments being used to generate revenue is that it increases the distrust of the police and disrespect for the law. It also further alienates the police from the general public.

I had one person say that the police need to do this in order to provide services. Most police forces do not receive money from anything but budget allocation by their parent governmental entity, grants, and asset forfeiture (another issue). If the department is not receiving enough funding to provide a certain service level, they need to reduce services. If people do not like the reduced service level, they need to complain to the governmental entities the funds the departments involved. This also means that they are likely to pay more in taxes too.

As a just incase. I’m keeping a PDF of this article.

Police Chief Magazine – View Article
The official publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Post imported by Google+Blog for WordPress.

Ever Wonder If Obama (and other Dems) Want to Tell People In His Administration “Shut Up!”

Attorney General Eric Holder states that the administration will seek a permanent “assault weapons” ban and other gon control measures.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

I will pick apart some of the things that he is attributed as saying in the article:

  1. The AR15 is now one of the most common rifles in the USA. Part of the Heller decision was that firearms in common use can not be banned. Thus, this would fail the test. The same can probably said for other firearms they seek to ban.
  2. The infamous “cop killer” bullets – This usually refers to ammunition designed to pierce body armor, which is already illegal to sale to civilians. The only other thing I can think they are referring to is rifle ammunition. Except for SWAT teams, police officers generally don’t wear body armor that can stop rifle ammunition. The reason is simple, it is extremely unlikely that a street cop will face rifle fire. The only other round I can think they would be wanting to ban is 5.7x28mm round. This round is often called a “cop killer” round because it was originally offered in an armor piercing configuration. Before the law changed, they stopped selling the armor piercing version of the round.
  3. The gun smuggling to Mexico – This has repeatedly been proven to be a red herring. The vast majority of weapons in the drug cartels’ hands are stolen from the Mexican military (these were sold to them legally and with US government support). So, of course they show up as coming from the USA. Their is weapon smuggling. But, it is not the major source of cartel weaponry.
  4. The “gun show loophole” – There is no loophole for gunshows. This is the right of every day citizens to transfer property between each other without government interference. These transactions are still illegal if the seller knows, or even has reason to suspect, that the buyer can not legally possess the weapon. Any firearms dealer at a gunshow has to still perform background checks on any buyers. Just because they are not in their normal storefront location does not change the law.
  5. Right now many Second Amendment rights supporters are willing to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt right now. If the administration and/or party leadership manages to strongarm the Democrats in congress into passing this legislation. The next elections will make the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 look mild by comparison. Most likely, unless the Republicans completely screw up their choice for President, the next Presidential election would also go to them. The fact is, the majority of people in this country do now see gun control measures as being useless and strongly object to them. The Democrats who have been elected to Congress recently have largely been put there with understanding that they will not pass gun control. If it passes, it might destro the Democratic party for a long time.

A not inconsequential side note. The companies that produce the assault weapons (and all of the side gear), employ a good number of Americans in well paying jobs. In the current economy, passing a new AWB will hurt the economy.

8 Year Old Cub Scout On Terrorist Watch List

The TSA says there are no children on the the ‘no-fly’ and ‘selectee’ lists. Yet, little Mikey Hicks (a frequent flyer), has been getting patted and searched since he was 2. Is it any wonder that I find these lists and their proposed expanded usage troublesome.

A Couple of Things This Morning

1. I heard something on the radio that I think would be a good thing to add to the government healthcare bill. In order to keep your government coverage, you would be required to have an annual physical as part of a preventative healthcare regimen. This would hopefully keep the costs down by catching problems early.

2. You can’t finance a car if your name is on the terrorist watch list. The summary of the story is, a man who is working at a famous medical school and has an 815 credit score can not borrow any money in this country because his name is similar to one on the terrorist watch list. Once again, people are being punished without the due process of law. The terrorist watch list is wrong and needs to be abolished.

This is why I had reservations about these laws

They now want to take away more of the rights of those on the “terrorist watch list.” (CNN)

When people on the government’s terrorist watch list have tried to buy guns or explosives in recent years, the government has let them the vast majority of the time.

That’s the finding of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, sent to lawmakers last month and released publicly Monday.


The GAO provided the report in response to a request from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey. The GAO said Lautenberg had requested an update to a 2005 report.

In a statement Monday, Lautenberg said, “this new report is proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities. This ‘terror gap’ has been open too long, and our national security demands that we shut it down.”

The statement said Lautenberg is introducing legislation that would give the U.S. attorney general “authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.”

There is a huge problem with this, nobody on the terrorist watch list has been found guilty of anything. At one time, Senator Edward Kennedy was on the list. The list just has names. And, if your name is similar to someone’s name on the list, you are hit with the same restrictions (this has happened to two-year-old). If we allow the government to arbitrarily restrict this Constitutionally protected right, what is to stop them from restricting others? What is to prevent them from putting all of the current (or future) administrations’ opponents, on this list? What will prevent them from adding you, your friends, and/or your family to this list? This very list is the problem. Unless it is modified such that being put on the list is the result of a court action, where the accused is allowed to defend him/herself, the terrorist watch list needs to go away.

They Just Don’t Get It

Apparently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on Good Morning America (I can not find a direct link to the transcript, this is the video) saying that they needed to get a compromise on a new assault weapons ban that includes registration and prohibit the transportation of weapons across state lines. First of all, those who believe in the Second Amendment as an individual right compromised from 1934 to 1994. We are sick of compromising. Here is a novel approach. How about going after those who intentionally break the law and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

As to registration, why? Registration will not solve or prevent any crimes. Will the money from firearms registration be used to pay for free public ranges the way the money from vehicle registration does? The only reason I can see to register firearms is to take them away at a later date. If they want compromise, are they willing to accept the registration of printers, printing presses, and other means of using your First Amendment rights?

Also, why do they want to ban the interstate transportation of firearms? Are firearms that are legally transported across state lines that big of a problem?

Interesting Comments on Forced (Or Coerced) Servitude

Interesting Comments on Forced (Or Coerced) Servitude

Much has been made by the new administration of the idea of national service and volunteerism.  While service to one’s community is certainly admirable, it is not the federal government’s place to “encourage” or promote volunteerism.  Moreover, there are troubling signs that national service could transition from voluntary to mandatory, or de facto mandatory, such as the requirement of service in order to be granted a diploma, or something along those lines.

Involuntary servitude was supposed to be abolished by the 13th Amendment, but things like Selective Service and the income tax make me wonder how serious we really are in defending just basic freedom.  The income tax enslaves workers for nearly 4 months out of a year by garnishing what amounts to all their wages in that period of time.  A military draft could demand your very life, without your consent.  This should be unthinkable in a free society.

There is more of this on Ron Paul’s blog. I do not agree with all of his comments there. But, he is definetely correct in his views on the government requiring or coercing service (military or other sorts) from people. One of the reasons I refuse to rejoin an organization I belonged to and the events that it holds is the requirement of service at their events. To attend one of their events I already had to sacrifice a large part of my vacation time, a yearly fee, and a hefty fee.  For me, the cost had already started outweighing the rewards. Government mandates for volunteerism to receive something will most likely do the same thing.

If we start requiring a service project for people to graduate high school, what will this do to the drop-out rate? Will more students start seeing a GED (or no diploma) as a better route than high school? If we start requiring a service project to receive federal funds for college, will young people decide it is not worth the bother? The majority of college students when I went to college already worked a job on top of their full-time class schedule, while receiving government grants and/or loans. How many will give up their dreams of a college degree as being impossible for them due to not having enough time?

I see no problem with encouraging volunteerism by the government as long as it is not tied to receiving something you need. I think an excellent way to encourage volunteerism would be as a deduction on the indvidual’s income tax (X dollars/hour up to a certain maximum). However, we need to be careful of making problems worse by tieing government benefits to service.

The Republican Party Has Signed its Death Warrant

The Republican party has elected Michael Steele as the new party chairman. He epitomizes what is wrong with the party. As an example:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you’re going hunting? That’s overkill. But I don’t think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what’s the point of passing gun laws if we’re not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start. We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about defending yourself and your family from others, including a government that is stepping all over our individual rights.

If you are supporter of smaller government and increased personal freedom instead of “group rights,” do not send a dime to the Republican party. Contact them and let them know what a mistake it was to alienate such a large section of their base. Contact Republican politicians and suggest they switch parties to a party that more accurately reflects their values, or they lose your vote. If you are a member of the NRA, you need to contact them and let them know that they need to withdraw support from the Republican party.


And, so it begins.

A US House Representative from IL has submitted a bill (H.R.45) requiring the licensing of all firearm owners and registration of all firearms. Contact your US House Representative and let them know you want this stopped. I will be calling mine.

Links to the bill: Link1, Link2

I totally agree, it is time to rebuild the Republican Party

Perry de Havilland has made a call for people who feel closer to the Republican ideals to change the party and bring it back to tru conservatism, instead of the fake, government in everbody’s business, statist conservatism it has now. Below is a quote:

2009 is going to be an interesting year, particularly in the USA. Big State Democrat Barack “The One” Obama crushed Big State Republican John “I Support the Bail Outs” McCain and this means the country is going to have a new president whose politics make him the most committed statist since LBJ. The country was given a choice between statism and statism and it voted for… statism.

Well to quote Mencken, the American electorate are going to get what they voted for good and hard, because this is also the year the global economy is truly going to crash, big time, plunging us into a recession and indeed a depression that will last longer and be driven deeper by the policies being implemented by governments on both sides of the Atlantic.

And this presents friends of liberty with a great many opportunities.

Never has there been a better time for cleaning house. The usual excuses given for pragmatic ‘broad church’ politics no longer apply on the so-called ‘right’… no amount of unity will change the fact that regulatory tax-and-spend politicians will be in charge for the next few years regardless of what people of a classical liberal disposition do. And so I would strongly urge such people to get into politics like never before, not primarily to fight the statist left just yet, but to create opposition parties that are actually worth voting for.

In short, I am calling on anyone who believes in liberty and limited government to reject all thoughts of party unity and work tirelessly to drive the statist right from their parties.

I am not calling for the ‘libertarianisation’ of the Republican party along the lines I would actually like, just for the party’s rationalisation. I am in essence calling for a nominally conservative party to become… conservative. The simple fact is that people can be fellow travellers on a path that leads to liberty without all marching in ideological lock-step. It just boils down to asking the question “do you want the state to have less control over people’s lives or more control?” If a person can honestly answer that they think the state is too powerful and needs to be reduced, that is a fellow traveller.


What is needed is a return to the ideologically driven and highly successful Reagan days, but happily without the distorting bipolar reality of nuclear superpower rivalries to worry about. Compared to the Soviet Union, the threat posed by Islamic terrorism is nothing more than the yapping of an annoying poodle, albeit one with rabies. Face it, it was the Cold War and fears over his hawkish foreign policy leading to nuclear Armageddon that did in Barry Goldwater, the best president the USA never had.

So now is not the time for Republicans to spend most of their efforts pulling together against The One in the White House… no, it is the time to rip the Party apart, ruthlessly and quickly, so that it can eventually become something worth uniting around. Oh sure, put the boot into Obama at every opportunity as this is also the time to fight the culture war without cease or apology, but the most important thing now is for Republicans to get their own party in order and that will require some extremes of disunity to achieve.

But this all needs to be done sooner rather than later, at the juncture where the Democrats are unassailable and party unity is frankly pointless. Pull out the political knives on Inauguration Day as a way to take you mind off the nauseating waves of sanctimonious kack radiating across the media caused by Barack Obama’s living beatification. Concentrate instead on the much needed massive internal political bloodletting and leave Obama and his Congress to do their worst as in truth there is nothing the Republicans can do to stop them anyway.

The economic crisis needs to be re-branded for a start: this is not, and never was, a ‘crisis of capitalism’, it is in fact the ‘crisis of regulatory statism’. John Maynard Keynes said “in the long run we are all dead”… well sadly for the Keynesians of all parties, the long run has finally arrived as it always does with Ponzi schemes. The lesser evil, the easy option, is no longer a viable option at all and the sooner the failures of the past are not dealt with by more of the same, the better.

All-in-all, I agree with the spirit of this. Republicans need to get back to the basics of a minimum amount of government, stop pushing for new government programs, and stop pushing for religious rule in the USA.