Snowflakes in Hell

Looks like DC filed it on time.  I guess you have to hand it to their attorney, who’s timeliness was rewarded by a sacking.

Hat Tip to Dave Hardy

Eric has a post about eco-loons who run around keying SUVs.

People who are moralistic about their evil are worse — far worse — than ordinary criminals. As far as I’m concerned, those who think it is right to vandalize a stranger’s car for political reasons have shown themselves to be completely lacking in conscience.

I couldn’t agree more. I wonder if Eric knows about our friend Lynn Hoffman’s book “Bang! Bang!” where the protagonist engages in an act of this kind of vandalism against members of a fictional pro-gun rights organization. Anything is justified as long as it happens to the right people I guess.

I’m glad to see this is happening, at least.  As I’ve said before, there’s a big difference between grassroots opposition to Sullivan and the NRA coming out officially against him.  It seems they have decided to take the route of trying to engage Sullivan, rather than try to defeat his nomination.  Combined with the hold placed on his nomination, will this be enough to get his attention and do something?  I hope so.  We’re stuck with Sullivan for another year, even if he never gets confirmed officially for the job.  Who we have after that is anyone’s guess.  The only long term solution to this problem is to pass HR4900.

With all the talk about the Iowa Caucuses, we can’t, of course, forget about the important matters.  It looks as if Britney Spears has been committed!  Now, while I’m not one worry too much about whether celebrities live or die, I wouldn’t be particularly unhappy if we could end this huge national trauma by Britney offing herself.   But as Bitter was wondering earlier, can she even buy a gun?

It has now emerged that she is reportedly being held under a so-called “5150 hold” within a unit at Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles, according to TMZ.com.

A “5150″ order means staff believe there’s evidence she is a danger to herself or others. The California order allows a clinician or officer to involuntarily confine a person, and requires signs of mental disorder and/or grave disability.

5150 holds are observational, and thus don’t qualify you for a firearms prohibition under federal law, but California law is different.  Under California law, you are not permitted to possess or purchase a firearm for a period of five years after your commitment, unless you request a special hearing to have your rights restored.  Now, if it is determined that Britney is mentally disturbed, and the state decides to pursue a 5250 commitment, that is considered an involuntary commitment under federal law, and she would be barred for life (until HR2640 becomes law, that is, and there is a process for restoration of rights).  California law doesn’t treat 5150 or 5250 commitments differently for the purposes of firearms possession.

Of course, that’s just the law.  Would you sell that nutty woman a gun if you had a gun shop?   I wouldn’t either.

Robb Asks:

Waiting periods for firearms purchases will be waived if the person purchasing the firearm has, on their possession, a firearm (unloaded, of course).

Because waiting periods are to “cool off”. If you already own a gun (and simply having it on you means you have plenty of access to it) then there is no reason to make you wait for another.

Any takers on why this would be a bad / non workable idea?

In California, or any other jurisdiction that already has a waiting period, this would be a good compromise to make.  In a situation where the passage of a waiting period is a political inevitability, it would be a good compromise to make.  Absent that, don’t make it.  The only time you ever offer a deal is when there’s a good chance you’re going to lose anyway, or you’ve already lost, and you’re just trying to make things less worse.

According to Thirdpower, there was a march for Ron Paul inside World of Warcraft. He ponders:

I have to admit, that’s pretty inventive. Wonder if the various other politicos are going to try and start organizing cyberspace rallies now.

Inventive, yes. Effective? Probably not. What do you think a WoW player would rather do? Play World of Warcraft? Or go vote? His supporters are to be commended for their dedication, but if there’s one thing we’ve seen in this election and in past ones, buzz online doesn’t translate well into electoral success. Traditional campaign methods still rule the day.

The Ronulans predicted time and time again that Ron Paul was going to win Iowa, and win big; they were going to show us all that the Ron Paul revolution was huge, and would not be stopped.  Well, it didn’t turn out that way, but I don’t think Paul supporters should feel disappointed.

I am not a casual observer of politics.  Some people like hockey, some like baseball, others are football fans.  My sport is politics, and I’ve followed it with an intense interest since I was a wee one.  If there had been Senator trading cards, I probably would have collected them.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in years of observing politics, is that candidates like Ron Paul not only seldom win, but seldom draw more than a few percent of the vote.  If someone had asked me a few months ago what I thought Paul would do in Iowa, I would have said 5%, tops.  The actual number was 10%, which in my mind is incredible.  I don’t think that’s so much a testament to Ron Paul, who I think is a quite imperfect vehicle for advancing liberty, as much as it is a testament to how awful and uninspiring party politics in this country has become.

I’m honestly not sure what’s driving the Ron Paul machine.  I’d like to think it’s a love of liberty, but I think he’s become a vehicle for a lot of quite disparate people who have just become disillusioned and upset at the whole political process, and that allows a lot of different groups to attach themselves enthusiastically to his message, which is fundamentally anti-establishment, and about as far away form status-quo as you can get.

Ron Paul’s 10% should be a shot across the bow to both parties that people are fed up.  Even the Democrat who won, Obama, ran as an agent of change.  If Paul wasn’t such an imperfect vehicle, I would argue that this 10% could be the beginning of something larger, but I don’t think Paul has the political acumen to turn his strong showing in Iowa into a real political movement that’s going affect lasting change on the Republican Party.  It’s a pity, because the end result is going to be the folks that pushed Huckabee over the top having all the political power, and liberty minded people having nowhere to turn.

In a move bound to make me hate the religious voters in the Republican Party more than I already do:

Evangelical Christians and those who want a candidate to share their religious beliefs vaulted Mike Huckabee to victory and rejected Mitt Romney in Iowa’s Republican caucuses Thursday night, a survey of early arrivals found.

Note to religious voters: If the fact that a candidate is sufficiently religious is all it takes to sway you people, I don’t see how this coalition is going to work out. Huckabee is a big government Republican, that makes Bush look downright libertarian in contrast. If this is who you folks are going to front, you can count me out. I like Huckabee on gun rights, and that’s where it ends. But I don’t see the right to keep and bear arms living well as long as Republicans and Democrats alike continue to undermine our constitutional government of limited and enumerated powers. If Mike Huckabee continues to find success, I think liberty minded people everywhere are going to have to have that “Sorry, but it’s just not working out” talk with the Republican Party.

UPDATE: My sentiments exactly.

According to this article, NRA is heading down to Georgia to talk about H.B. 89, the bill to allow people to have firearms in their vehicles while on company property.

As I covered a few days ago, there is another bill that’s really worth looking at in Georgia. Georgia has among the worst carry restrictions in The South, and it’s high time we looked at getting rid of some.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with the NRA on the pursuit of H.B. 89, because I think they are an infringement on the private property rights of employers.  This expands government regulations into areas they have no business interfering with.

Shoot me now!  Please.  The sadder part is that there are probably at least a dozen other permutations that would cause me to say the same thing.  The only real hope in this whole sad affair is that Iowa often has a habit of not predicting the overall winner.