Found At The Br-dy Website

This factoid (under "overview"): "Two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, do not require a permit to carry concealed handguns in public while two states forbid the carrying of concealed handguns."

Emphasis mine. Homework: they ain't doin' it. Kids, that's right bad advice up there. Don't follow it; the gun-banners want to get you in trouble.

As we all know, the two states are actually Vermont and Alaska. Vermont's been that way since almost forever; funny how it is one of the safest states in the Union, hey?

Also wrong: Indiana listed as a state that allows open carry without a permit. Not true for handguns and a good way to learn about criminal justice system from the inside. I'm startin' to think the misstatements are deliberate. And/or evidence of mental disease or defect.

GOP Wonks, Reporters: Getting It Wrong Again

Some Republican pols are positioning themselves as, well, outsider-nerds (including Indiana's own Mitch Daniels, a man held in mixed regard but not, thank Fates for a wonder, stupid) and the GOP's analytical marooooons have gone back to the dynamics of Jr. High to interpret the phenom. Up in Michigan, the prez of a polling outfit who found their local Visigeek office-seeker polled 'stonishin' well blathered, "The folks who are passionate NRA members, I just don't see them partying with nerds."

Bzzzt! FAIL! In fact, Gov. Daniels is an NRA nerd. A motorcycle-riding nerd. And, yeah, a bit pencil-necked. Not a real dashing, dramatic guy; nerd-like, he goes in and does his job. He doesn't always do what I'd like him to do. He's a nerd who doesn't get beat up; a nerd who rides and shoots.

And there are too many folks out there, advising politicians and reporting about them, who don't have any room in their worldview for such people. It's not just that they don't get Ron Paul or Ross Perot; they're derailed at any set of characters more complex than the ones on the funny pages -- and I suspect even Rex Morgan, M.D. is too deep for most of 'em.

Welcome to the Planet of NRA Nerds, d0000000ds. You're gonna be dazed a lot.
_______________________
* Or just the Stupid Half of The Party. C'mon, they both take your money and spend it, largely on things of which you disapprove; for most of 'em, it's only a matter of degree and rhetoric. Take notionally-Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg, for instance. Please. Far, far away. Is it better than bein' the Evil wing? Maybe marginally. But not consistently. Voters keep sweepin' out Party N's crooks an' replacin' 'em with Party M's crooks, hoping for better but getting pretty much the same ol' dance. Maybe it's time we woze up.

Steam Engines?

Not just any sort: Swash-plate steam engines! What's that? Go see! Scroll down and play the videos; the operating mechanism is fascinating and uncommon. Crazier than an elbow engine! Internal-combustion axial engines -- swash-plate and kin -- have done serious work in places like torpedoes.

More conventionally: the largest hit & miss engine I have yet seen, in one of the odder applications. And you've gotta love the starter!

The Indy (Red) Star Panics

The Editor of our local paper doesn't give a fig for your safety and he's not ashamed to misstate, overstate or leap from high atop steaming heaps of twisted logic to make his point, either. It sure is a good thing they don't yank newspaper permits for abusing the truth (I'll get back to that) or he'd be lookin' for a new line of endeavor for sure.

Yep, it's the Gun (kept out of sight) In Your (locked) Car At Work law. As promised, the Star has yet to say a single nice thing about it. 'Cos, you know, it's not like their offices were in an iffy neighborhood....

In our prior exciting episode, I made passing mention to "exemptions" and mentioned the most glaring, a Federal limitation covering certain attractive-terrorism-target facilities. There are others: schools from daycare through universities, certain utilities and even, in a bizarre late addition, employees who drive the developmentally disabled in their personal vehicles (which would seem to be extending area covered way past any employer's parking lot). Prisons are included, too, though note that most law-enforcement types are okay[1]. Rather than admitting they are the result of Federal limits, lobbying and appeals to emotion[2], the newspaper tries to spin these exceptions to claim the idea behind the law is flawed!

Exactly backwards; it's the exemptions that are the flaws. The Fed limits, there's no getting around at the State level (wake up and get on that, Dick Lugar! What, no?).

The entire editorial is a bouquet of horse-muffins; lines like "guns.... They often go off by accident." (Say what? No, it takes a finger on the trigger. Guns are actually designed that way, to require a deliberate sequence of actions before "going off." Which you would know, Mr. Editor, if you knew enough about firearms to actually contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way). Workplace shooting incidents (highly visible but statistically insignificant) are mentioned -- not mentioned is the vanishingly small number of them in which the shooter had a permit[3], which is a prerequisite to having a gun in your car at work in Indiana[4]. And, of course, the paper trumpets their "discovery" that some people issued gun permits had a previous history of rough -- but not disqualifying -- behavior and of that already tiny group, a few got themselves in more trouble and lost their carry permits as a result. They claim this disproves the wisdom of allowing at least some Hoosiers to have the means to defend themselves on the way to and from work, that limiting our individual civil right to keep and bear arms is a matter of "public safety." This is a lie; legally-owned guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives millions of times a year in this country.

Now I'm back to "permits to exercise a civil right." In a shall-issue state like Indiana, gun permits are issued on a basis that objectively checks your past behavior for disqualifying behavior; there's no guessing or intuition, either you're okay or you've been felonious or domestically abusive and if either of the latter two, no go. The state presumes you'll keep on bein' good and if not, guess what, they revoke your permit. While the mechanics are somewhat onerous (down to the Police Officer Station for paperwork and fingerprints, money changes hands -- rather a lot for a lifetime permit -- and there's a looooong wait while the Indiana State Police yank your records to see if you've been naughty or nice), it's not especially bad compared to any state but Vermont or Alaska. So, you get a permit to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right, you lose it if you do criminal things.

Imagine the outcry if the same procedures applied to the First Amendment; let's take The Press as our example: Mr. Editor shuffles off to Police Headquarters, where he fills out a form: Name. SSN. Address (You Must Notify Within 30 Days Of Any Change). Has he ever been convicted of slander? Libel? Has he been sued for giving bad advice (I meant to write "Never mix household ammonia and scouring powder," not "always...")? Is he still beating his wife? There's a stern warning on the form that giving incorrect information is a felony, so he wracks his brain for old speeding tickets and suchlike. He gets fingerprinted. He hands over two sizable money orders and he goes home. And he waits. And waits. And waits. Weeks, months later, he receives a little pasteboard card he has to cut out himself. There's a warning included: he must have it on his person any time he is writing or publishing or he can be charged with a criminal offense! And if he gets in trouble even once -- one teeny slip like callin' a United States Senator a closeted homosexual without indisputable proof, or exposing damaging truths about someone who's not a public figure -- he'll lose his permit and may never even be allowed in the same room with a newspaper again.

And that, for the Editor of the Indianapolis Star, is how a right that he frets is not sufficiently limited works. How damned much more subtle prior restraint do you want? --And will it keep others without a Press Permit from spray-painting slander and libel on the side of buildings? From putting up gangsign and/or urging violence? I'm thinkin' not. Mr. Editor, he's just not thinkin'.

The bill is headed off the Governor to sign. He's got an excellent track record on gun rights, voting in the General Assembly was overwhelmingly in favor of this measure; let's hope Our Man Mitch remembers who butters his bread.
___________________________
1. Okay, experts; we know civilian workers at prisons still can't (lawfully) have a gun in their car at work, but what about the guards and LEO-ish admin personnel? Do they get a, um, reach-around?

2. "Kerwin Olson, who warned lawmakers that a gun left in a car transporting children like his 15-year-old son, who has autism and Down syndrome, could have tragic consequences. 'I would plead to you, as a father with a vulnerable son, please do not allow firearms in those vehicles that transport my son and other children like him,' Olson told lawmakers. 'The thought of a firearm around my son, his friends and his schoolmates is horrifying.'" Even one locked in a box? Even one in a concealment holster on the driver's belt? Kerwin, your son is handicapped and that's unfortunate, but that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot yourself. There are already laws penalizing being sloppy with dangerous items around children and mental incompetents. For some reason, they are not applied to keep you and the General Assembly separated, which I find a horrifying thought. I certainly hope the vehicle transporting your son is never carjacked.

3. It's way easier than typing "License To Carry Handgun" every time and not even all gunny Hoosiers recognize "LTCH," let alone the out-of-state furriners or those from even farther away amongst my readers. Thus, "carry permit." Cope.

4. There are darned few ways to transport a handgun in Indiana without a carry permit; you have to be buying it, selling it or getting it fixed; it can't have any ammunition in it and it must be "securely wrapped." I don't see any wiggle room for a stop by the office in that. YMMV, INAL, AMORC.

Guns In Your Car!

Crow has never tasted so sweet. The Indy (fishwrap) Star scooped me; who know, it just may help to have boots on the ground at the Statehouse instead of relying on the legislature's website, crazy as that sounds. Of course, they've got all the positive quotes 'n' comments after the jump and all the negatives ones on Page One, above the fold. You stay classy, (Red) Star!

The measure made it through the Senate 41 Yeas to nine (9! read it and weep, Bradyites!) Nays. It's headed for the Governor, who is expected to sign it.

And here's an interesting item: way, 'wayyyy back, I had noticed the bill including language exempting facilities regulated by the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism standards, which the paper points out just happens to include Eli Lilly; this means the hypocritical liar concerned citizen at the head of that firm was whining about a bill that wasn't going to affect him. D00d, hire better lawyers.

Also on the pants-soiling side of things, the president of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Kevin Brinegar, vows to fight the law "all the way to the bitter end," claiming it infringes upon the rights of employers; he believes if your last name is "Inc.," your rights trump the rights of those pesky little flesh-and-blood peasants. It might be nice to contact the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and try to calm their misinformed panic; after all, it's hard to get the urine stains out of a thousand-dollar suit.

Guns In Your Car

In the Indiana General Assembly, the House thinks it's a fine idea; they voted 75 to 20 in favor. Meanwhile, in the Senate? Stuck in committee. I don't have a good feel for the folks they've got looking at this but I'm not hopeful.
Update: wrong, wrong WRONG! They passed it!

Indy (Red) Star: Free Market Bad

Carrie Nation with a keyboard, the local catbox liner's recidivist editorialist Andrea Neal is worried not only about the scourge of rum[1] but another True Horror:

By law alcohol is a regulated product ... but the way we treat it in Indiana is coming close to laissez faire.

[Emphasis mine] Yes, the paper once again demonstrates the Authoritarian Control Bias of modern American mass media ("Government control is goooood") at the very least, with more than a pale-pink tinge of disapproval of free markets.

Boiled down, her notion is that it's just terrible that you can buy beer, wine and hard liquor at a wide variety of locations, not just "package stores," most of which still have that delightfully Soviet screw-you monopolist ambiance and convenience from the days when they were almost the only game in town[2]. She thinks it's a horrible, awful shame you can buy the Distilled Demon (or even beer and wine) at a nice, well-lit grocer's or drugstore and even trots out an old canard in support; the free market comes at a diresome price, she huffs:

Studies show an increase in violent crime -- assault, domestic battery and armed robbery -- in ZIP codes with high density of alcohol licenses. Property crimes are higher too.

A) Which studies would that be? Cite or shaddup. B) Correlation is not causation; it's a sad fact you find more stress, more crime and more liquor stores in poorer neighborhoods. But fear not, Poor Guy; a six-pack of Bud may be your only escape but Ms. Neal's here to make it even harder to get! --She also wants to know if you've stopped beating your wife. C) Freedom includes the freedom to be a screw-up, drunks will get their booze and I'd as soon it wasn't wood alcohol from Sterno fuel; on the other side of the counter, freedom darned well also should include the freedom to sell a legal product to legal buyers, legally, without having to go hat-in-hand to beg an artificially-scarce permission slip from a board of bureaucrats who've never bought and sold for a living, ever. D) I'm not even gonna touch on the covert racism in "Studies show...."

Then there's this nice bit of "don't know much about history...:

The words [the rationale for Indiana's alcohol laws] sound old-fashioned, but there's more than Prohibition-era thinking behind them. We limit access to alcohol to protect children and to reduce side effects such as drunken driving, alcoholism and domestic violence.

Um, no, dear; that was the Prohibition-era thinking. And, just so's y'know? It didn't work out that way. But hey, thanks for playing.

History: lather, rinse, repeat. And this one's a twofer!
__________________
1. No word yet on her opinion of buggery or the lash.
2. If I recall, Indiana pharmacies have long been able get permits to sell alcohol; until the last decade or so, most only stocked a very limited selection behind the counter. Correct me if I am off-base.

Leave Starbucks Aloooone!

Okay, I'm not about to climb under a sheet with a webcam to moan and cry (besides, I don't wear as much makeup as Christopher Crocker) but neverthestill:

It hit the papers today and there's one one logical reaction: Brady's, leave Starbuck's alone! Why are you trying to force -- one of your fave words when it comes to permitting citizens to exercise a civil right, innit? -- force Starbucks to pick a side, when the best-case outcome is that it will tick off half their customers?

Why lean on a chain of coffee joints to sign up on a side? Starbucks doesn't vote. Most of their stores are small; in states (49 of them, Paul Helmke, are y'skeeered?) with some provision for the carrying of loaded handguns by law-abiding citizens, it makes no sense for a store smaller than most living rooms to tell the guy or gal who is perfectly okay keeping and bearing arms on the sidewalk outside the store that they can't come in and pay high prices for a decent cuppa Joe; what's twenty feet closer to the cappunchino machine gonna do?

It's funny this just popped up today; after all, the dialogue has gone on for weeks. (Bradys: Waaah! Guns baaaad. Starbucks: Shaddup, you! We Sell Coffee. If a customer's not breakin' the law, we will sell 'em some.) Y'know why they are pushing it now? One word -- no, two: Otis McDonald.

See, it's lookin' pretty good for him and not so hot for Chicago's gun-banning ways. So they've got to raise a stink; and how better than by riding on the coattails (not to mention the rump) of a widespread and very popular coffee seller? Starbucks has beaucoup name-recognition, after all.

So far, the Brady ploy is backfiring. I fully support Starbucks desire and right to sit this mess out. It's not their fight; they're here to sell coffee to anyone who'll buy -- and why not?

McDonald

Just as you have been, I've been following McDonald in the news and on the blogs. The early reports bode well, though I confess to a little discomfort at Alan Gura's schooling of Justice Sotomayor even though he was right. It's not as if she ever was or will be a friend to the Second Amendment and cultivating her does us no good, but she and her peers take their elevated positions very seriously.

It may not matter; even the usual anti-rights sources indicate a high probability of five votes for incorporation, possibly more depending on the delicate balance between "keep" and "bear" that frets some of the more liberal Justices. ...Can't hurt that Chicago's attorney walked all over the Supremes far more rudely, either.

Whatever the decision, considerable latitude for draconian regulation will remain; Mr. McDonald has no doubt already studied Washington, D.C.'s registration and permitting process and if the Court agrees that the intent of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments was not that he be left with no defense other than a shotgun, thousands of his fellow-Chicagoans may soon embark on the same voyage of discovery.

But say it goes the other way, what then? Same as winning, at least in IL: Back to the grind. There's only one (1) state left that absolutely forbids the bearing of arms and despite wide popular support outside Chicago and a remarkably strong gunnie community, there's a lot of work still to be done.

Lilly Exec Lies About Guns-In-Cars Bill

The bill that presently seems stalled in the Indiana General Assembly, the one that'd let you carry your gun to and from work as long as you kept it locked in your car? John C. Lechleiter, President, Chairman, CEO and Priest-King of the Eli Lilly empire loathes it -- which he is free to do -- and is tellin' lies about it in the newspaper, which is kinda dirty pool. Or at least not accordin' to Hoyle.

You see, the bill specifically shields employers from anything that might go wrong from letting you keep your legally-owned gun locked in your legally-owned car in their legally-owned parking lot; he claims instead that, "A corporation can be held civilly liable for violating the law as written, but also civilly liable for any injury or damage resulting from the use of a firearm on its property." Oh, really? Funny; that's not what the bill says. The bill protects corporations from being sued over "injury or damage resulting from the use of a firearm on its property."

Of course, the good, the great, the so very honorable (more so than you or I, of course) Mr. Lechleiter also believes the rights of a corporation trump the rights of individuals -- a belief much easier to hold when you're the fellow in charge. Just ask Louis XIV of France, "L'Etat, c'est moi." Or "...the corporation;" as Clair Wolfe was fond of pointing out, they all wanna be governments when they grow up.

He's got one vote, same as you. Better use yours -- his has a hemi!

Update, from the comments on the news(ick)paper's site: "I say again, why are their armed guards on the 13th floor protecting Mr. Leictleiter? Why am I not afforded the same protection? And, why does he need armed guards if he forbids guns on the Lilly campus? It's obvious he doesn't believe his own tripe." Yep, Mister you-shouldn't-carry-a-gun has his very own armed guards. He can be protected by a gun...the gal that mucks out the executive washrooms and walks out to her car in the dead of night to drive home, though, he wants her defenseless. For the chilllldren. Ass.

Where Wookiees Come From

Or possibly where they go; like so many parts of English-speaking culture, it is found in England. There, in (or surrounded by) the parish of St. Cuthbert Out,* you will find the village of Wookey Hole. Presumably, the furry, libbytarian sapients make their homes in the manner of Hobbits, though undoubtedly with higher ceilings.

How I found the place hangs a tale; you see, I was looking at Roman Engineering starting with bridges (some are stunningly lovely), got onto dams (there's a few left, mostly with silted-up reservoirs, wandered-away watercourses, or broken; all three, in some cases). This led to Roman mines and the Dolaucothi Gold Mines especially, from there to the lead mines at Mendip, from there to the caves likewise, and thenceward to....Wookey Hole. Ahh, they're a fiendishly subtle lot, they are.

Best side trip was here; even the articles I can't read well have fascinating photographs!
_____________________
* As opposed to, of course, the parish of St. Cuthbert In. --He's not the patron of housecats, is he?

This Just In

Roseholme Cottage is down to our last butter knife! --Well, until Tam runs the dishwasher. I blame the bagels. Or maybe the rye bread.