The founders of our country saw the need of a well regulated, and well armed militia who was able to defend themselves and their country against impending threats. If defending yourself against illegal aliens, who are growing illegal drugs, and threatening Americans citizens on public lands, isn’t what they had in mind, then I have know idea.

When I commented on the original site that this was “One more reason to always be armed,” a guy named Joe responded:

“Yeah, your single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition” — not to mention greater numbers and a familiarity with the area.

“Good way to get yourself shot, more like.”

Since they moderated my reply (I guess I was too extreme for them) I give the basics of it here. Yes, my “single handgun/rifle is going to be real useful against pot farmers with “five high powered rifles, equipped with rifle scopes and numerous rounds of ammunition.” In fact, that sounds a lot like what I carry in my truck, and my camper.

The fact is that criminals are lazy and unlikely to have adequate training with their weapons. I, on the other hand, took my last Elk on the run at 600 yards and can empty two 13 round magazines into the center of a target at 25 yards in under 12 seconds with my .45 ACP. I’m not braggin, because that doesn’t make me special. Many people I know can do the very same thing.

The point is, if the pot growers would have never confronted the campers had they thought they posed even the remotest threat, which is why they choose to set up shop in places like California, where they know the public has a 99.99% chance of not being armed.

As I’ve said before, being armed is about making the choice yours. If only your attacker has a weapon, he makes all the choices. If your armed, you make your own. That doesn’t even mean that you have to defend yourself. In many situations, caution would dictate that you still comply, and never attack, but even then, as long as you have a .45 tucked neatly into your waistband, the choice is yours.

the adventure life

get outside and play

Marijuana Growers Chase Campers From Natl. Forest

by steve casimiro ? April 20, 2009 ? Post a comment

This week really wasn’t planned to be an all-pot kind of week, it’s just working out that way. (Today’s the stoner new year, right? But if you’re stoned, isn’t every year basically 1976?) Regardless, in Los Padres National Forest, California, two pot farmers scared off some campers in a high-speed dirt road rally that ended with arrests and confiscation of $26 mill in herb. The Santa Barbara County sheriff’s report reads better than I could rewrite, so here it is in its entirety:

New Cuyama – On Friday, 04-17-09, at approximately 11:30 a.m., two adults, who had been camping in the Aliso Park area west of New Cuyama, came across an active marijuana garden. While in the area, the campers were approached by two Hispanic male adult subjects who were tending to the marijuana garden.

The subjects attempted to converse with the campers, however due to a language barrier, they were unsuccessful. The subjects requested that the campers remain in the area, until the arrival of the “boss” who spoke English. The campers became fearful and packed up their gear and left the area. While the campers were driving down the dirt road, they were approached by a pick up truck traveling the opposite direction. As they passed the truck, they noticed the occupants seemed very interested in them. The truck stopped and the driver exited and waived for the campers to come back. They ignored his request and kept driving, believing he was the “boss” that the two subjects had referred to earlier. The driver returned to his truck and began chasing the campers down the mountain. During the chase, the truck came dangerously close to the campers’ vehicle several times.

[Read More...]

Internal Obama probe absolves his team in Blago mess

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Tuesday, December 23rd 2008, 5:47 PM

WASHINGTON – Team Obama cleared itself Tuesday of any role in Rod Blagojevich’s alleged bid to barter the President-elect’s Senate seat – and offered no evidence the Illinois governor sought to sell the slot.

An internal review found Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, talked with Blagojevich and the governor’s top aide to discuss replacements – but that was it.

[Read More...]

The other issue relevant to the post is that the business owners finances are seldom taken into consideration in the event of a natural disaster in the discussions of price gouging. A business that may typically depend on the profits garnered from 30 tanks of fuel and 4 turns of its dry inventory during a month may be forced during a disaster to make do with only 3 tanks of fuel and one turn of dry inventory to pay all of its monthly bills. By selling all of its inventory at its original price, and not being able to restock and resell, the business guarantees its financial ruin.

Is it price gouging to plan for that lost revenue and raise your prices enough to make up for it?

Wisdom

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Problem with law-breakers….

…may be knowing if you are breaking the law!I have a piece coming out on price-gouging law in NC. Sent the URL around to a few people for comments….(will post it here when embargo ends) A friend from high school writes:

Another argument to explore would be that of the convenience store owner that has plenty of ice but refuses to sell it until he determines the maximum price the government will allow him to sell it for. Ah to have a libertarian convenience store owner that would shut down in a crisis and request the attorney general to come over and determine and price his inventory for him. Would it be illegal to refuse to sell your inventory in a crisis?

One of my assignments took me to Guam where we had a few typhoons, one of which had 180 mph winds. The island was smacked very hard, we lost power island-wide for nine days (and up to 40 in some areas), and the main fuel storage tanks on the island caught fire consuming all available gas that was not already in gas station tanks. Many people had back up generators at home, myself included, but it was interesting to see al the dynamics of the situation in action.

posted by Mungowitz @ 9:09 AM

Bounty Hunter Arrested in ’03 Case

By DAVID CARR

Published: September 15, 2006

Duane Chapman, a bounty hunter and the star of a reality television series, was arrested by federal marshals yesterday morning on charges stemming from a capture three years ago in Mexico.

Skip to next paragraph

Lucy Pemoni/Associated Press

Duane Chapman, “Dog the Bounty Hunter” in Hawaii in January.

Mr. Chapman captured Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir who was convicted of raping three women.

Mr. Chapman, 53, was arrested at his house in Hawaii along with his son Leland Chapman, 29, and Timothy Chapman, 41, no relation.

The charges have been pending since they were arrested in Mexico after the capture.

In a twist that will not be lost on fans of Mr. Chapman’s program, “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” on the A&E cable network, Mexico is seeking to extradite him for posting bail and then failing to appear to answer criminal charges in July 2003.

Read the Rest of This Article in The New York Times

So let me get this straight. Dog and his associates got arrested in Mexico for capturing a violent fugitive who jumped bail in the US (because bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico) and Mexico refused to extradite. Dog and his associates then posted their own bail in Mexico, then failed to show up for court, thereby jumping bail themselves. They have now been arrested by U.S. Marshals who are basically now acting as Bounty Hunters for Mexico, which is illegal in Mexico. So they now have to face an extradition hearing in the United States that could result in them being sent to a foreign country to face charges and possibly be put in a foreign prison for something that is not a crime in the United States, where they were arrested.

Mexico adamently refuses to extradite hardened violent criminals to the U.S., but we seem more than willing to extradite good folk to Mexico for going to get them. There is something wrong with this picture. Dog, I hope you get a judge that isn’t a complete idiot.

Good luck, man.

Wisdom

Consider this scenario. Officer Bill Blue is fishing today. Working an undercover sting operation, Officer Blue picks Joe Somebody out of the crowd on the street, pulls him to the side and says, “Hey man, I really need 10 bucks. Will you buy this joint off me?” This is the thirteenth person he’s tried this on today after 12 failures, but Officer Blue knows if he casts his lure enough times, someone will bite. This time Joe Somebody does. “Sure man, I’ll buy it,” Joe says as he starts digging in his pocket for $10 bill. A jerk on the pole and this fish is caught. Officer Blue reels him in and he’s charged with the illegal possession of a controlled substance, and the court date is set. Except this time, there’s a problem. The officer initiated the sale, not the “perpetrator”.

Any lawyer worth his salt would throw the word entrapment into the mix and Joe Somebody goes home a free man. Why? Because the prosecution cannot prove that he would have broken the law on his own accord without the officer encouraging him to do so. That is how our system should work. Our law enforcement officials are supposed to investigate people who are already breaking the law, using undercover officers, informants, and forensics to gather enough evidence on them for a conviction. They are not supposed to randomly select members of society and offer them a chance to break the law. That is why you never hear of the police running a sting of this kind to make a drug bust. It is simply the wrong way to get it done. The basis of our freedom relies on our legal system being a reactionary one that punishes criminals who are already criminals, not a proactive one that sifts through the population in lottery fashion tempting Joe Somebody’s with a chance to break the law.

The truth is, everyone breaks the law in some form or fashion at some point in their lives. Whether they crack the speed limit by a few miles, forget their seatbelt on a trip to the supermarket, or don’t get a building permit before they remodel their basement, there are very few Americans who haven’t pushed the envelope of the law in one way or another. Does that make it right? Of course not! But we can’t have our government putting radar detectors every 100 feet on the highway to catch speeders, sensors in every car to alert the police when you pull out of the driveway with your seatbelt not fastened and weekly inspections of every basement in town so you don’t put up a new wall without the proper permits either. If they did, I’m sure that fewer people would break the law, but it would also make this country a police state, rather than a free nation. That’s okay for “enlightened” European nations like Britain, Norway, and, Switzerland, but it is unacceptable for us. It simply would not be American. Once our law enforcement officials are given free reign to investigate people who want to obey the law, and encourage them to break it instead, the floodgates will be open, and every American will be open to become the target of entrapment.

Right now, as you read this, police officers are sending minors into grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations and liquor stores, at the instruction of the Wyoming Legislature, to attempt to purchase tobacco and alcohol. The official purpose of these stings is to conduct “compliance checks”. They are done in the name of protecting our children from the harm of tobacco and alcohol use, but their real purpose is to write tickets out to otherwise law abiding citizens who make mistakes. The fact is, there isn’t a retailer or clerk anywhere in Wyoming who wants to sell these products to minors, and none of them would ever approach a minor and offer to sell them alcohol or tobacco, but Wyoming’s statutes have made these people suspects in the eyes of the law. Not only are the clerks in small businesses all over Wyoming now expected to parent and police the minors who are trying to buy alcohol and tobacco, they are now being treated as criminals, just like drug dealers, without the benefit of the doubt. They are being made the targets of criminal investigations on a daily basis without ever having been accused or suspected of any crime or wrongdoing.

These policies, handed down by the Legislature and carried out by law enforcement, strain the relationships between peace officers and the people they are hired to protect. Criminals should be wary of a police officer who crosses their path and they should hush to whispers and give wide berth when a deputy approaches. The average citizen should not. The average citizen should feel free to welcome law enforcement officials into their communities, their businesses, and even their homes without the underlying fear that the officer is there to catch them off guard and make a lawbreaker out of them. They shouldn’t have to wonder every time they smile and say “Howdy” to their neighborhood peace officer when that same officer is going to make them the target of his next investigation.

This new way of upholding the law just doesn’t work in America, and especially here in Wyoming. The government should always assume that the average citizen is attempting to obey the law, and our law enforcement policies should reflect that. If they want to stop minors from obtaining alcohol and tobacco, they should arrest minors who actually try to buy alcohol and tobacco, and when they find minors who already have those products in their possession, they should follow it to is source and take appropriate legal action.

So, to answer my original question, “When is it okay for a representative of a law enforcement agency to ask an otherwise law abiding citizen to break the law, knowingly or unknowingly, and then charge them with a crime?” Never! They should leave the clerks and other average law abiding citizens alone, giving them the benefit of the doubt until there is reasonable suspicion to do otherwise. Let’s keep the fishing trips focused on the real criminals and leave Joe Somebody out of it.

Wisdom

First, let’s review the Shepard case and what makes it such a prominent figurehead in the battle to enact hate crimes legislation in Wyoming. Matthew was an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming in Laramie who became the victim of a brutal beating and murder. The alleged perpetrators of this horrible crime lured Matthew into their vehicle with hints that they too, were gay. Once he was inside the vehicle, these would be friends suddenly became his captors. They drove him to a remote area, robbed him, stripped him of his clothes, and beat him with the butt of a .357 revolver. And beat him. And beat him. Then they left his scarred broken body there to die. But he didn’t, not yet anyway.

His murderers, alleged that is, were arrested and arraigned almost immediately after he was found hanging off the barbed wire fence. They were brought up on charges of kidnapping, aggravated robbery and attempted murder. After being found, Matthew managed to live another five days before succumbing to his injuries and finally passing away on October 12. The charges levied against his alleged tormenters were promptly upgraded to first-degree murder.

In the following days, the news of his tragic death were broadcast across the country. Cries for justice were loud and swift. The gay community chose to make Matthew a symbol for their cause, and the hate crimes lobbyists chose to make him a martyr for theirs. President Clinton voiced his outrage at such a violent act, and Governor Geringer was besieged with requests to enact hate crimes legislation in the Equality State. All of a sudden, Wyoming itself was on trial. Why? Because Wyoming doesn’t treat a crime committed out of hate differently than any other type of crime.

Now let’s discuss what a hate crime is, as it would be defined by law. A hate crime is any violent act that is committed against a victim who is targeted because of his or her race, nationality, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes legislation would impose stiffer penalties on crimes that fall under these requirements. The reasoning? By imposing these greater penalties, hate crimes legislation would deter these particular types of crimes. Furthermore, it would reduce the hate in the world and humanity would become more humane. We would all sleep better knowing that it is now illegal for the guy down the street to hate me because I’m Mormon and he’s a Catholic. All of our hates would be legislated away with the stroke of a pen, and safety and happiness would abound!

Am I starting to sound cynical? I am. Do I sound like I don’t buy it? I don’t. Read these two short scenarios and I’ll get back to you later:

Your name is Jon, Jon Smith. You’re a young Jewish man who lives with his family in Suburban, USA. After a long day at work, you’ve finally made it home. You pull in the driveway, turn off your car, lock it up, and start the 20 foot walk up the cement path to your porch. You reach the door, fumbling for your keys, and after a moment, clumsily make your way into the house. As you turn on the living room light, you see the unthinkable. Your two daughters are lying in crimson pools, sprawled out in the space between the couch and the hallway to the kitchen. You’re youngest is still holding the Raggedy Ann doll that you had just given her for her birthday, only now it is soaked in sticky blood. As you slowly regain your senses, you hear the unmistakable “Click!” of a revolvers hammer being pulled back into firing position. You look up to see a young man, early twenties at the most. He’s wearing ratted blue jeans, a black sweater, and white Payless tennis shoes. You notice splatters of dark crimson splashed on his shoes, pants, and hands. In the dull glow of the corner light, you see that he has a small swastika tattooed on his lower left arm just above the wrist, and on his right forearm, barely visible, is an SS. “You Friggin’ Kike!” he hisses, pure hatred in his voice. “You God Damned Jews should all rot! I already offed your brats, now it’s your turn!” You’re able to say one short little prayer, telling your daughters that you’ll be with them soon, as this hateful young man puts the gun to your forehead, pulls the trigger, and separates your mind from your body. Literally.

Your name is Jon, Jon Smith. You’re a young man who lives with his family in Suburban, USA. After a long day at work, you’ve finally made it home. You pull in the driveway, turn off your car, lock it up, and start the 20 foot walk up the cement path to your porch. You reach the door, fumbling for your keys, and after a moment, clumsily make your way into the house. As you turn on the living room light, you see the unthinkable. Your two daughters are lying in crimson pools, sprawled out in the space between the couch and the hallway to the kitchen. You’re youngest is still holding the Raggedy Ann doll that you had just given her for her birthday, only now it is soaked in sticky blood. As you slowly regain your senses, you hear the unmistakable “Click!” of a revolvers hammer being pulled back into firing position. You look up to see a young man, early twenties at the most. He’s wearing ratted blue jeans, a black sweater, and white Payless tennis shoes. You notice splatters of dark crimson splashed on his shoes, pants, and hands. In the dull glow of the corner light, you see that he is holding a small cloth sack, hanging open, and in it you can barely discern the cash and jewelry obviously stolen from the dresser in your bedroom. “Dammit! No one was supposed to be home.” He says, frustration edging through in his voice. “Sorry about the brats man, but I can’t leave any witnesses.” You’re able to say one short little prayer, telling your daughters that you’ll be with them soon, as the young man puts the gun to your forehead, pulls the trigger, and separates your mind from your body. Literally.

Alright, it’s quiz time. Should a man who kills out of hatred be punished more than a man who kills to steal? Which of the above deserves the worst? Who should get life in prison, and who should get life in prison plus fifteen? The young man who hated you, or the young man who just wanted to rob you. Would a hate crime law have prevented the first crime? Would it have provided justice in the second? No, and no.

More importantly, would it have prevented the death of Matthew Shepard? Sadly, no.

The fact is, someone who commits a violent act doesn’t stop and think, “Now am I doing this out of hatred because my victim is black? Because if I am, I better stop now because I’ll get a longer sentence!” Violence is violence, pure and simple and someone who crosses that line is already beyond this type of reasoning. It should be the duty of the jury to decide whether or not the suspect committed the crime. When a guilty verdict is reached, punishment must be swift and fitting. Its severity should be based on the actions of the perpetrator, and not the underlying reason for those actions. In the Equality state, as it should be in the rest of our country, robbery is robbery, assault is assault, and murder is murder. Punish accordingly and let the sociologists and psychologists figure out “why”.

Later for now.

-Wisdom