Fast, Furious, and Frightening

ATF Logo. Public domain work of Federal government.

This is not news. In fact it has been forgotten. It shouldn't be though, which is why I'm bringing it right back up again.

According to Human Events, over 2000 guns were sold, 700 were located after crimes, and only 3 were given tracking devices, and those had bad batteries. While human tracking may or may not have been used, we do know that at least 2 federal agents have been killed in connection with Operation Fast and Furious and that at least 1300 guns have not been located. When compared with the ease of GPS tracking, it is clear that an inferior method, at the very least, was chosen.

The motto of the Mexican drug mafia is "silver or lead," and violence from Northern Mexico has spilled over the border in to the United States many times, most famously with Pancho Villa in the 1920's. Although highly romanticized by many, the violence with Villa led eventually to the burning of Columbus, New Mexico and a punitive expedition.

Narcotics trafficers in America have been known to firebomb houses, kill innocent citizens, despoil the desert and harm private property. They are the complete antithesis of law and order, and all things public spirited. I don't know exactly what the US had in mind when it armed these drug dealers, but being the legitmate government of the American people was not it. This is not something to be forgotten or forgiven, but something that the American people have a duty to hold their government accountable for in every way that they are able.

Free Letter from K.L. Jamison

The following letter, according to my friend Shane Seckler, is available to anyone under the following conditions: 1) the letter is credited to its author, the honorable and good K.L. Jamison, Attorney at Law of 28 years experience, specializing in self-defense and weapons, state of Missouri, 2) the letter is unaltered and a notice like this one is provided with it. Any variance from these terms will result in the right to publish it being waived.

Considering how many hungry lawfirms would love to swallow you whole for losing the right to publish this, I suggest you don't.


IT'S JUST THE LAW: Police Protection Law

by K.L. Jamison

The law allows a policeman to command a citizen to come to his aid. The reverse is not true. In 1849, Jonathan W. Pottle was held captive and forced to pay $2,500 for his release. Mr. Pottle thought that this was unreasonable because the sheriff was present during the extortion and refused to assist him. As a loyal American, Mr. Pottle sued over this failure to act, and lost. In an 1855 decision the United States Supreme Court perfunctorily recited the facts, and ruled that there is no right to police protection and no right to sue over its lack.

Since that decision, there has been no right to police protection recognized in the United States. It could have been worse. More recently, women in a Washington D.C. home were raped and tortured while other women, hidden upstairs, twice called for help. Twice officers drove past the house without investigating. The hidden women were then discovered and tortured over a fourteen hour period. They sued. The court was sympathetic, but ruled there was no cause of action.

The states have the same philosophy. In a Missouri case, an outraged community sued their sheriff demanding that the court order him to perform his duty. The requested order was to force the sheriff to close a facility that did not measure up to community standards; or at least those members of the loyal American community that filed lawsuits. The court refused to issue the order. A long chain of federal and state cases state that police have a responsibility to protect the community as a whole, but no duty to protect any individual within that whole. It may help to visualize the metaphysics of the philosophy to realize that the point is to prevent victims of crime from suing the police.

The courts have allowed that the police must protect persons with a "special relationship" to the police. Such relationships are so special as to be nearly extinct. In my early years at the bar, the courts found special relationships in cases involving drunk drivers and protective orders. Federal courts have put an end to these special relationships. On May 16, 2006, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in McCloskey v Mueller III, finding that the FBI had no duty to arrest a violent criminal. The criminal in question, Gary Lee Sampson, had called the FBI and advised them that he wanted to surrender on an armed robbery warrant. The FBI did not oblige.

Reacting badly to the perceived snub, Mr. Sampson murdered three people. Their estates sued, but the court ruled that the FBI had no duty to the victims.

Protective orders in adult abuse cases typically require police action to protect the subject. However, the Supreme Court has put an end to this fuzzy thinking. In Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, Jessica Gonzales had obtained a protective order against her husband. The order contained a "Notice to Law Enforcement Officials" which stated:

You shall use every reasonable means to enforce this restraining order. You shall arrest, or . . . seek a warrant for the arrest of the restrained person when . . . the restrained person has violated or attempted to violate any provision of this order . . ."

The husband violated the order by kidnapping the couple's three children. Ms. Gonzales notified the police repeatedly, alerting them to the protective order and even the location of her husband. Mr. Gonzales subsequently murdered the children. The Court ruled that the explicit language of the order did not require the police to do anything and provided no cause of action.

There is not even the right to have the police patrol one's neighborhood. In 1972, Kansas City, Missouri conducted a patrol experiment to discover the impact of vehicle patrols on crime rates. Some neighborhoods received increased patrols, some the same level, some none at all. The neighborhoods involved were not informed they were part of a test, much less given a choice as to which group they could join. The experimenters were surprised to find that vehicle patrols made no difference in crime rates or citizen satisfaction. A later withdrawal of patrols was less popular. On June 1, 1996, drug dealers in the area of 27th and Benton in Kansas City became outraged at the arrest of one of their guild and rioted. Police units were withdrawn from the area in order to allow emotions to burn themselves out. While doubtless good operational practice, it was a trifle hard on the citizens at 27th and Benton. The rioters burned a passing car and attacked the owner.

It might have been worse. During the April 1980 riots in Miami, police headquarters was under siege by the rioters. It could be a great deal worse. National Guard troops assigned to guard airports after 9-11 carried unloaded weapons in many cases. It appears that some commanders were more concerned about a John Wayne mentality among their troops than they were about terrorists in the airport. It might have been a very great deal worse. In 1919, the Boston police went on strike for 102 days and Home Guard units formed for WW I had to be called in.

One can never be certain of police response. There are regular "blackouts" in Kansas City when no police officer is available for any call. When they are available, there is no guarantee they can be called. The Kansas City emergency communications system is notorious for dead spots, areas where it functions badly or not at all. Even the Plaza, a fashionable shopping district less than five miles from the communications building, has numerous dead spots endangering police, firefighters, and citizens.

A Kansas City police officer, while vainly radioing for backup, was shot and wounded by a drug dealer. Officers were a minute away, but the radio crackled and hummed ineffectively, telling the assailant that the officer was alone and vulnerable. The officer sued the radio system builders. It is possible to sue such outside parties, but not possible to sue the police.

When police are available and can be called, they may not respond. A New York City woman pressed a silent alarm when an armed robber entered her business. The alarm company called 911; the operator, however, garbled the name of the business. The lady was murdered while the authorities put it down as a false alarm. After her funeral, the company received a letter threatening no response if there were further such alarms.

A Kansas City businessman was alerted to a burglary by his alarm company. He went to his business, expecting to be met by the police, only to find himself pursuing the burglar alone. The alarm company had called 911, but the dispatcher refused to send police officers because the business' alarm permit had expired. In fact, the alarm permit had not expired. A permit system intended to limit false alarms has instead been used to limit police protection.

The ACLU has provided video cameras to residents of a crime-ridden St. Louis neighborhood. The cameras are not to provide evidence of crime, but to document police brutality. While police brutality does occur, the effort is not likely to speed officers to calls in the neighborhood.

The problem of "de-policing" has arisen since the Cincinnati riots of 2000. The term describes a demoralized police force which no longer initiates action out of fear of criticism, police discipline, civil suits, and even criminal charges. In the last twenty years, "community policing" has relied on aggressive enforcement of seemingly minor laws on the theory that lack of enforcement indicates a tolerance of serious crime. With criminals filing bogus criminal charges against aggressive officers, and wild charges of racism (some both wild and true) many officers are reluctant to exercise the requisite aggression.

When the system functions, and an officer is available, and an officer responds, it may still not be enough. One department's policy is to wait for backup when responding to domestic violence reports. This sensible practice had a woman stabbed to death while a police officer sat in his car three doors away, waiting for backup.

Police response is directly related to police contact. This contact is tied to cell phone coverage and the 911 system. Cell phone coverage can be eccentric and dependent on the reliability of electronic devices. Even today, not all of Missouri is covered by the 911 system, and there is no map of the places that are not covered (for those who like surprises). Some places have the equipment to locate a 911 call from a cell phone to within 75 yards, but most can only narrow it down to the nearest cell phone tower. A Missouri cell phone user can dial *55 and be linked to a Highway Patrol headquarters, but not necessarily the nearest headquarters.

Police are recruited from "Type A" aggressive personalities. They want to rescue people and charge into danger; it is their nature. However, they are ruled by bureaucrats and politicians both in and out of uniform. If these rulers decide that a person or persons shall not receive police protection, there is no recourse. One federal court has proclaimed that "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Fortunately, there is a constitutional right to the means to defend ourselves.

Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense.

Meteors, Superviruses, Nuclear War and World Governments

Comet Halley. Public domain by NASA.

There are some biologists who think a meteor killed the dinosaurs, one that left the Gulf of Mexico as crater. Beyond the immediate impact, such a meteor would leave vast clouds of dust that could block out the sun for months, much as a much smaller explosion created a cloud that blocked out the sun for a couple weeks in Washington State when Mount Saint Helens erupted. There is also the minor potential for the formation of dangerous liquids, solids and gases that could cause everything from minor respiratory problems to infertility in large sections of the earths soil to poison humanity, and viruses or bacteria if such a meteor were to come from an extraterrestrial body that had life. In addition, an exceptionally large meteor could invert the crust, melting away at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit all present traces of life on this earth, or reverse the poles, making Earth temporarily susceptible to super powered radiation from the sun, possibly destroying all of humanity in an instant.

This is hardly the only lethal hazard humanity could encounter. A supervirus, such as an airborne form of HIV, could kill of vast numbers of our species in a short time, and similar airborne viruses where no existing human gene could provide a reasonable defense could easily wipe humanity off the face of the earth.

Nuclear War is every bit as present today as it was in 1961 as a major threat to life on this planet. In addition to the obvious hazard of a purposeful nuclear war, an accidental launch, especially from less developed nuclear nations such as India, or a nuclear theft, especially from Pakistan or Russia, could trigger a series of events leading to a mass death throughout this earth, and potentially (though I will not take the time to verify or deny this claim) Nuclear Winter.

A large World Government could attempt mind control or even just more traditional totalitarianism or absolutism, leading to a century of war, mass killing, and insurgency throughout this planet, or a thousand years of horrifying submission, kleptocracy, and degradation, and likely genocide. The two are highly connected, as Indochina (Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos) and Africa have been clear examples of both.

What do we do about these supreme dangers? If any of these dangers is to be handled effectively, humanely and justly, planning must occur in advance, preferably with clear rush buy instructions to build what is necessary to handle them overnight or sooner, even at high cost. Methods must be developed to deal with these problems as they come up, and any tool required needs to be buildable in a short amount of time, as it is financially unreasonable and politically untenable to keep such things stockpiled for when they are needed. Sooner or later, one of these, or possibly all of these, will happen.

Theoretically, there are telescopes that could tell us to a high degree of certainty whether or not a meteors trajectory would take it to Earth. They could also (of course) tell us the meteors size, and possibly allow us to deduce what it is composed of. With a relatively small number (around a dozen, 2 each 8-hour-shift) of men in a single office, we could analyze the sky. If the meteors are detected far enough away, we could easily have several decades of warning time to develop a plan to neutralize the hazard.

Research labs and embargo plans could help fight the danger of a supervirus. First, by cutting contact, we could isolate the community where the virus is occurring, while using airlifts to ship in vital supplies. Second, through not only good medications, but good theoretical processes to develop a medication quickly for any ailment based upon the chemical composition of the cell, we could develop medicines, possibly even cures quickly. Third, developing a larger base of antibiotics makes the likelihood of a bacteria resistant to all drugs less, but the private sector is unlikely to develop something with such a low revenue margin, as antibiotics are very cheap. Public sector, university funding could be utilized to develop such instead, avoiding the hazards of a reactionary market for this particular need.

As for Nuclear War, an ABM (Antiballistic Missile) system could deal with minor launches and be used as a first resort, leaving MAD, the destruction of humanity with nuclear weapons, as a last. Such a system could be developed using Supersonic SAMs, Lasers, or some combination of both, but would need to destroy the ICBM's at a sufficient safe distance, even if normally able to disarm the missile.

So how do we handle the world government? You've probably heard this many times, but the best guarantee for a democratic (or otherwise regulated) government is a free society, and the best way to enable such a free society is through the private ownership of firearms allowing a final safegaurd before totalitarianism becomes entrenched. Not only does this make the ultimate control of a central power less likely, but enables the population to fight quickly, shortening the time that a civil war against such an authority must last. Allowing citizens to defend themselves with firearms not only helps lower crime, but also keeps the population ready and militant for such an event.

All these measures (including the right of gun ownership) require planning and forethought. Some of them require government (or private organization) intervention for domestic security, and one of these requires government to stay out.

National Hunting Parks

Source of the Carbon River, public domain, US Government

The Evergreen State already has substantial parkland, but the one thing we do not have is a hunting park. Though Washingtonians can hunt in open land that is unowned or owned by lumber companies and conditionally open use, the state has not preserved land for sportsmen in a strong way.

An environmental group there is currently trying to protect the Carbon River, but right now I doubt voters in any state are much interested in spending on parks and recreation, and especially not one that already has so much of it. A spokesman of their group said they would try to get funds from the Stimulus bill, but if for some reason they don't, their next best hope is to offer Washington something it doesn't currently have - a different kind of park and one that will help preserve a national tradition.

See, in Medieval Europe, peasants were not allowed to hunt wildlife, sometimes (in the case of France) even if it was eating their crops. When the Irish, Germans and other groups that came to this land in poverty took their land claims, they not only could hunt, but it became an important part of their life. The word "buck" is used for dollar because early Americans would often trade buckskins instead of using the rare gold bullion that England forced, with mercantilism, back to its own borders.

Go to a Western lodge off a rural highway, even today, the ultimate symbol of land ownership for the common, frontier man, and at the end of the great timber floored hall, prominently over the fire place, the head of a deer or elk, and many other preserved animals like Cougars, Owls and Hawks. You may also be served venison, and use a deerskin as a blanket.

The Carbon River controversy centers on development along WA-165 of the Tacoma metropolitan area. This makes the park both very accessible to city slickers who normally don't hunt, and very in danger of development. "Developing" it as a reserve for hunters and their prey would nearly guarantee its preservation, and be very political tenable as it is something both locked and loaded Republicans like me and greenminded Liberals can agree on. Similar parks can be established in other states, near cities, to give the common man a real chance to engage in this great tradition.

A New Mindset on Gun Regulation

There is a tendency on the American "right to bear arms" debate to simplify the sides to "more order, more regulation" and "more freedom, more weapons." But there are several kinds of firearm restriction:

1.) Weapons restrictions - prohibiting weapons that fire automatically, semiautomatically, beyond a certain caliber, or prohibting broader categories of guns such as rifles, shotguns, pistols, machine guns, and howitzers (exploding shells).

2.) Ownership restrictions - prohibiting certain kinds of people, like mental patients and former criminals, from owning weapons.

3.) Usage/Carrying restrictions - prohibiting weapons in certain areas and under the influence of drugs, alcohol, et cetera. Might theoretically also include certain weather conditions, like fog, or certain seasons to prevent poaching out of season in forested areas.

Even the most ardent/extremist gun rights activist (like me) would generally support some degree of (2). (3) would be acceptable in certain kinds of places to nearly everyone, including me, though for me the list may not be as extensive as some would require. It is (1), the debate of the kind of guns you can own, that generally is the source of debate.

The trouble with the debate on (1) is that the result of banning assault weapons is to make single individuals helpless against a mob. There is a reason why infantry began fighting in smaller squads once assault weapons came out. The less abillity to spray fire that a particular gun grants, the more limited you are in your abillity to engage groups.

Now, it is true that most of the time the criminal would win anyways, but if an innocent had even a 10% chance of defeating his assailants with his assault weapon, innocents would, as a corporate, have the edge, as an innocent must only face this situation, at most, once every few months, even in the worst parts of town, but said streetgang will likely have to face this every night, meaning that, on average, they die in 10 days!

It should be noted, however, that this situation only works well if some degree of semi-millitary training is required for all participants in assault weapon ownership, as it is in most countries (like Switzerland) that allow such. This also provides a great opportunity to catch criminals, as they need only make one slip of the tongue or act suspiciously once during training to become automatic suspects. The training would be funded, of course, through an assault weapons ownership fee and held at local police departments.

(Howitzers, however, may create too much spray and property damage potential, and there is nothing that can be done with a howitzer in a normal person-to-person setting that could not be done with an assault rifle much more safely.)

The American Rifle

Copyright Wikimedia User Hmaag, GNU License 1.2

From the edays of settlement, resisting indians, and hunting wild turkey, the firearm has had a place in the American heart. With the gun comes warriordom; you are a fighter to be reckoned with as long as you have a gun in your hand.

For some people, this means defending against oppresive governments or foreign invaders, for others it means hunting and providing for their family in the way that nature made us too, for still others it is a defense against criminals and protecting your property. For a few very wicked souls, it means inflicting your evil on others.

Firearms crimes are often cited by gun critics as a reason to ban or phase out or limit gun ownership. There are several weakpoints in their argument: 1) criminals don't obey the law, 2) few criminals want to die or face a chance of death, and 3) statistically, even if you will only nail your bandit 20% of the time, and he nails you the other 80, you, as a law-abiding citizen, still have the advantage, because he must steal almost every day, and most American citizens will probably only be robbed maybe once in their lifetime. Even those who have it the worse will hardly face it everyday.

Also, in Europe the nation with the highest gun ownership rate, Switzerland, a nation where even millitary rifles are legal for most men and there is a holiday to celebrate their gun ownership tradition, has the lowest crime rate.

America is a violent country, and always has been, and will be for quite some time. This is not entirely a bad thing. That natural spunk and energy has made us a mighty force throughout the entire world with our innovation, curiosity, rebellion, activism, entrepreneurship and many other products of that same bloody mind - we are a Sanguine country, hear us roar. But it is true that, no matter what we do, our crime rates will always be higher then Englands, as that freedom of mind makes us prone to both good and evil.