Snowflakes in Hell

You May Now Panic

Sebastian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:31:51 +0000

I read something about Knob Creek having a shortage of bourbon over at SayUncle’s earlier this week. Now Food & Wine is confirming the rumor. Because of the aging process, distillers have to predict demand out 9 years, and it seems they guessed wrong.

Clearly this all Bush’s fault!

Test Smoke

Sebastian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:40:33 +0000

I’ve got a couple of chicken breasts on the smoker. I mostly just want to see if I can control the temperature of the smoker with the modifications I made. All the symptoms from the ribs last weekend pointed to too high a temperature. I went to Home Depot today, and made some modifications to the firebox to be able to control air intake and to elevate the coals off the bottom of the box to improve airflow around the fire. Bought a grill thermometer that reads something more than “Warm/Ideal/Hot” so I could check actual temperature. Turns out “Ideal” is somewhere around 300 degrees. That’s great for baking, but not for BBQ. Looks like with the air intake mods, I can control temperature, and get the fire down to 225 degrees. This is the Minion Method of BBQ, and I think that’s what I’m stuck using as long as I’m using a bullet type smoker.

Sarah Palin Resigns

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:03:17 +0000

I’ve often said in conversations with Bitter than the reason our political system is so hopelessly messed up is because no one in their right mind would subject themselves and their families to what is required to be successful. With that in mind, Sarah Palin has decided to resign as governor. More coverage here and here.

I think this means her political career is pretty effectively over. Those who were hoping for Sarah in 2012 I think will be disappointed. I’m disappointed. But I don’t blame Palin. She’s a normal, well adjusted person, which means she does not have what it takes to survive in national politics. When you think of the implications of that, God help us all.

UPDATE: Here’s what disappoints me the most about this:

That spurred this terrifying thought: The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

It would be wrong to ask anyone to carry the kind of burden the Palin family did. But the snakes which are so predominant in politics won. Big time. That doesn’t give much reason to celebrate this 4th of July.

Criticisms of Eugene Volokh’s Framework, Part I

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:34:06 +0000

Eugene Volokh is highlighting his recent law review article detailing a framwork in which to think about the Second Amendment in terms of self-defense (he does not go into the resistance to tyrannical government arguments). I read this in draft, and believe it to be a very thorough and coherent conception of the Second Amendment from the perception of self-defense. I encourage everyone to take the time to read it (it’s long). I do, however, have some minor issues with his reasoning as I will lay out over a series of posts. I will begin with assault weapons. Let’s start on page 1484 (or 42 on the PDF) of Prof. Volokh’s review:

This is clearest when we look at bans on so-called “assault weapons.” Such bans have been hotly controversial, but the dispute about them is largely symbolic. The laws generally define assault weapons to be a set of semiautomatic weapons (fully automatic weapons have long been heavily regulated, and lawfully owned fully automatics are very rare and very expensive) that are little different from semiautomatic pistols and rifles that are commonly owned by tens of millions of law-abiding citizens. “Assault weapons” are no more “high power” than many other pistols and rifles that are not covered by the bans. Definitions of assault weapons reflect this functional similarity: They often focus on features that have little relation to dangerousness, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, or (for assault handguns but not assault rifles) magazines that attach outside the pistol grip or barrel shrouds that can be used as hand-holds.

It’s therefore hard to see how assault weapons bans would do much to decrease crime, since even a criminal who complies with the ban could easily find an unbanned gun that is as criminally useful as the unbanned gun, and is as dangerous to victims as is the banned gun. The class of assault weapons is indeed not “typical,” at least in the sense of common use. But there is no reason to think that most assault weapons owners have them for criminal purposes. And assault weapons are not more dangerous than the usual gun, which in my view makes them fit within the category of “arms.”

Nonetheless, the availability of close substitutes for assault weapons— the very reason why assault weapons bans are unlikely to work—also makes it hard to see how assault weapons bans would materially interfere with self- defense, at least given definitions such as those in the 1994 federal statute. And the reasons the Court gave for why handgun bans are impermissible—that handguns are “easier to hold and control (particularly for persons with physical infirmities), easier to carry, easier to maneuver in enclosed spaces, [or easier to handle while] still hav[ing] a hand free to dial 911”—do not apply to assault weapons bans: Assault weapons are no more useful for self-defense than are many other handguns, rifles, and shotguns that aren’t prohibited by assault weapons bans. Assault weapons bans might well be pointless, and might offend gun owners who want the freedom to choose precisely what sorts of guns they own. But this need not make assault weapons bans unconstitutional, if the courts focus on whether the law substantially burdens self-defense.

I disagree. Prof. Volokh does an excellent job of outlining why so-called assault weapons are neither more dangerous or unusual than other types of firearms, but I think his conclusion that easy substitutes are available overlooks an important factor, and a factor that I do not think should be readily discounted by the courts. The courts ought to categorically reject any substitution arguments, in determining the burden on self-defense, because substitution arguments will invariably overlook the multitude of factors that go into determining which gun is right for someone. It’s a complex equation that the courts ought not intrude themselves into, once the dangerousness argument has been dealt with. Let me tell you a tale of two rifles.

One of the most popular semi-automatic rifles on the market is the SKS. I can hardly think of any of the gun safes I know that doesn’t have at least one, and they are becoming increasingly popular for hunters on a budget in states that allow hunting with semi-autos. While in some states, they are banned in certain configurations, the SKS remains cheap and popular because they are considered “curios” under federal law, they can be imported into the country largely in tact from surplus stocks in Eastern Europe. They require no additional work to comply with federal or most state laws once they are imported. A decent rifle can be had for under 200 US dollars in most gun shops.

In contrast, we can look at the semi-automatic Kalashnikovs. A decade ago, most of these rifles could be had for around 300 dollars. By all rights, the Kalashnikov should be no more expensive than the SKS, but is because manufacturers can’t import them legally, but have to do a great deal of assembly in the United States, with American made parts, to get around the import restrictions. In fact, due to increasing restrictions by the federal government in importation of receivers, under the still standing importation ban instituted under the first Bush Administration, the price of these has risen to more than 600 dollars, since it’s forced manufacturers to do more of the work here. They are now, because politicians and bureaucrats have deemed them “assault weapons”, out of the price range for a lot of individuals who lack the means the buy them.

As tempting as it might be to argue, because the SKS is available, and cheap, it’s a reasonable substitute for the Kalashnikov, that overlooks several factors. For one, the Kalashnikov takes a detachable magazine, which has a lot of advantages for self-defense. Chief is that the magazine can be stored already loaded, separate from the firearm, eliminating the need to store the rifle loaded. It also allows for quicker reloading, if necessary, or if a magazine fails. There are conversions for the SKS to give it a detachable magazine, but they make the gun less reliable, and make it illegal in a few states. Second, the Kalashnikov is much shorter than the SKS, which makes it more convenient to store, and makes it easier to maneuver around tight corners. More importantly, perhaps, the shorter rifle makes it harder for an assailant to grab. The pistol grip on a Kalashnikov makes it easier to wield for most people, and particularly easier to wield by someone who has arthritis of the hands, or who perhaps isn’t quite strong enough to get a firm grip on a standard rifle stock. Along that same vein, the Kalashnikov is also lighter, and easier to mount accessories to.

I think it’s also reasonable to argue that the right to keep and bear arms also must include the right to practice with them, and with the Kalashnikov being available in many more calibers than the SKS, it offers advantages in that regard. The firearm I can find the most ammunition for right now is my 5.45×39mm Kalashnikov. It’s one of the few rounds that’s still cheap and relatively available. I don’t shoot my SKS as much because the ammunition it takes is harder to come by right now.

It’s quite easy to suggest that the courts can consider the substitution argument, which from the comfort of the bench, seems to be a tempting game to play. But it’s not so easy if the proffered substitute doesn’t work for a specific individuals needs, limitations, stature, etc. What works best for the individual should be left to the individual. That is, after all, why it’s an individual right, is it not? Once the courts dispose of the “dangerous and unusual” argument when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, that’s where the analysis should end. If semi-automatic rifles are judicially noticed as being useful for self-defense, then the Second Amendment should protect their ownership in any configuration that may suit a specific individual need. To do otherwise would be doing the Second Amendment rights of a great many Americans a grave disservice.

Increased Gun Sales Show People Support Gun Control?

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:29:22 +0000

I think the Brady Campaign is drawing a rather bizzare conclusion from the latest Rasumussen poll. Must be the Montezuma getting to them.

Flat Earthers

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:00:55 +0000

Robb Allen says that the anti-gun folks are a lot like flat earthers.

Seal: It’s What’s For Dinner

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:36:55 +0000

There’s a controversy up in the Great White North about whether restaurants ought to be serving seal meat. Personally, if you’re killing the animal for the fur, what’s the sense in wasting the rest of the animal if people want to eat it?

He has since taken a deep, almost protective interest in the way seal reaches his restaurant, traveling to the islands to meet the hunters, and visiting the abattoir where the meat is butchered. Mr. Lenglet also sought out local purveyors who could smoke the meat.

You can smoke seal? Hey, I have a smoker now. Seal BBQ anyone? Apparently it has a somewhat fishy taste, which is odd for a mammal, but I’m guessing it’s because seals eat mainly fish.

On the Blogosphere 2.0

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:16:52 +0000

Megan McArdle points out this interesting article over at 11D on where blogs have evolved to, that I think is largely correct. Here are some interesting points, but go read the whole thing:

1. The A-List Doesn’t Matter Anymore. I just read a really nice paper that came up with a new method for determining the top 20 bloggers.[...]

I think this is mostly correct, but I wouldn’t discount the fact that most of these blogs have traffic into the stratosphere compared to niche blogs like mine, or even SayUncle’s for that matter. The A-Listers still matter, but my understanding from Bitter, who was doing this long before me, is that the assertion that A-List blogs don’t drive the readers they used to is true. Many of their original blogs have also disappeared, and were subsumed by new media projects like Pajamas Media, or Hot Air.

2. It’s all about niche blogs. If you have a particular expertise and unique perspective, they you can quickly gain a following. Everyone else is out of luck.

This is absolutely true, and largely because there will never be another Instapundit. The nature of the ’sphere has changed too much, and I don’t think anyone who’s not a niche blog is going to be able to rise to that level. When I “blogged” on LiveJournal, I covered generic political topics and guns occaistionally. When I launched into blogging two and a half years ago, I stuck strictly to gun blogging because I thought it was the only area I’d have a unique perspective to offer.

3. Norms and practices. Bloggers have undermined the blogosphere. Bloggers do not link to each other as much as they used to.

This is true, and it makes it a lot harder for someone to become successful in this medium. I would have not found success if it hadn’t been for SayUncle and Bitter, who linked to me heavily in the beginning. The problem is, finding things to link to is extremely time consuming. I have several dozen blogs on my RSS feed, and it’s been whittled down as of late because I couldn’t keep up with everything. I have 785 unread posts in total right now, even with a reduced number of blogs. There’s no way I can go through everything.

4. Blogger Burn Out. Many of the top bloggers have been absorbed into some other professional enterprise or are burnt. It’s a lot of work to blog. Most bloggers, and not just the A-listers, spend 3-5 hours every day blogging. That’s hard to maintain, especially since there is no money in this.

It’s true. It takes a tremendous amount of work to find things to blog about. Truth is, since Bitter is no longer blogging, she helps me with that a great deal. I probably couldn’t keep this up if she weren’t constantly scouring Al Gore’s Internets during the day looking for things. If she ends up getting a job, it will cut down my free time in the evenings and in the mornings greatly if I have to do this all myself. Having Bitter largely stop gun blogging, and having one of us unemployed, is good for the blogging, and taking the pressure off me.

9. Link Monitoring. In the past, I could easily figure out which blogs had linked to me and then send them a reciprocal link. For whatever reasons, Google Blog and Technorati aren’t picking up the smaller blogs, and I have no idea who’s linking to me.

This is a big pet peeve of mine. Technorati tracking is no longer worth squat, and Google picks up too many useless spam blogs, forcing me to have to pick through to find the real people who are linking. In the past, linking was a way to get noticed, and way to keep a conversation moving through the blogosphere. A great traffic driver was writing something everyone else wanted to talk about. Now I have little idea who’s linking to me. Trackbacks are pretty much dead too, thanks to trackback spammers.

Happy Pre-Independence Day

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:38:03 +0000

If you’re like me, you don’t have work today, since July 4th falls on a Saturday. NRA has a pretty good Independence Day message from Charleton Heston. It’s old, obviously, but few people could speak like he could. It’s worth watching.

Bloomberg Campaign Commercial

Sebastian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:02:57 +0000

He has Carolyn McCarthy shilling for him. I guess she is incapable of running on anything other than her hatred for guns and gun owners. Related posts:Republicans Running Serious Against McCarthy?PoliticsNY on McCarthyCarolyn McCarthy is a Sad Panda Related posts:

Who’s Drinking Beer?

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:59:18 +0000

A guide to which states consume the most beer. Seems that Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Nevada drink more than most. You’d think for people that drink so much beer, Montana would have better microbreweries. Maybe this is my excuse to move out there.

Parking Lot Thing in Arizona

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:39:38 +0000

Dustin looks at all the successes this year. Many of these are great victories, but among those are the Parking Lot bill. From the “not sure why NRA makes this a priority” department, the Goldwater Institute, normally a friend of gun rights, is planning on challenging the legitimacy of the law.

“The Goldwater Institute strongly supports the right to keep and bear arms,” Bolick stated, adding that the Institute filed a brief in Heller v. District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened Second Amendment rights. “But it is a right against government, not against private individuals. This bill does violence to private property rights.”

As I’ve said, I don’t think the issue is really about property rights, but is really about employment law. Whatever is in your car is your property, and your employer has no legal power to search your vehicle. But your employer doesn’t have to continue a relationship with you if you do something that’s a violation of the employee agreement. That employers bar guns in their workplaces and on their property is no more a violation of my right to bear arms than if a friend has the same rule for his house. My response to a friend who wanted to search my vehicle would be the same as it would be to an employer, namely a to very nicely and politely tell them to go to hell.

As a society, we do accept government intrusion into the employer/employee relationship for a number of things, chief among those to prevent discrimination. But that is a special case. As a rule, I’m not comfortable with the government interfering in private relationships. It is a restriction on freedom of association that should not occur in a free society. There are better ways to make companies reconsider anti-gun policies than by government meddling in private relationships.

On the Original Purpose of the Second Amendment

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:52:36 +0000

Let’s say that a future government has decided to incarcerate wrong thinking people into “reeducation camps,” to try to get people thinking right, and to quietly “take care” of all those who can’t be rehabilitated. Free speech is suppressed, the media made an arm of the state, and the government refuses to stand for free and fair elections. In that situation, most people would recognize the government has forfeited any claim to legitimacy. We fought a World War, and a risky, expensive, and protracted cold war against such governments. Most people, I would wager, would agree such a government ought to be resisted, and violently if necessary. But I have to question how some view the form that would take on.

Do folks really believe that if the proverbial shit were to hit the fan, that the people will prevail by the people bringing out their privately owned tanks, RPGs, anti-tank missiles, artillery, mortars, F-16s, helicopter gunships, surface-to-air missiles, to fight and defeat a modern army, or even part of one, on its own terms in conventional military operations? I would posit that warfare has changed a great deal since 1776, and even if the courts agreed the Second Amendment protected all of these things, it would be entirely symbolic and meaningless. Very few people could afford them, or even if they could afford them, they wouldn’t own such things in large enough numbers to make any real difference.

This is not to say that I think the Second Amendment’s purpose of enabling people to resist a criminal government is completely obsolete, just that it’s not going to happen the same way it did in 1776, only with modern weapons. Any resistance to a criminal government in the modern age will take conventional small arms, explosives, information, intelligence, and will. Small arms we have to ensure are protected under the Second Amendment. Explosives are impossible to control in such a situation, and will be available no matter what laws regulate them under a legitimate government. Intelligence and will are organizational qualities that are unrelated to arms. Hell, I would argue that the ability to tinker with model airplanes is more important to the modern concept of “militia” than knowing the principles of artillery, and knowing RF communication principles far more important than knowing logistics.

In the history of 20th century warfare, this has played out more than a few times. The Vietcong engaged in an extensive and largely successful guerrilla campaign, with only what their fighters could carry on their backs. In fact, the fatal mistake of the Vietcong was to come out of the jungle, and fight an offensive against the U.S. military on conventional terms. Militarily, Tet was a defeat for the VC, and it destroyed them as a fighting force. But Tet broke the American will, and in that sense was not a failure. It is, however, a harsh lesson what happens when a guerrilla force tries to fight a conventional army on its own terms.

What I advocate here is not an extinction of the original purpose of the Second Amendment, but to emphasise that the priority has to be on protecting conventional small arms. I don’t think whether destructive devices are protected or not really makes all that much difference in the overall scheme of things. The nature of modern warfare has not made the Second Amendment’s “defense against tyrannical government” obsolete, but it has changed the equation enough that appeals to how things were in 1776 aren’t much use in figuring out how it would be applied in a modern context.

I’ve Always Wondered Too

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:28:51 +0000

Arizona Rifleman wonders why commie bloc ammo smells so bad. I’ve always figured it was the priming compound they use. I’ve noticed that even with .22 ammo, there’s a difference in smell between, say, federal, and anything that is Eley primed. Could be the powder, but even the cheap Eley primed Mexican ammo smells this way.

Tough Times for Newspapers

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:23:51 +0000

Now they are forced to sell their access to the White House, Congress, and their reporters instead of ads. How much for a pro-gun op-ed prominently placed in the Post? Can we buy some positive coverage of the shooting sports in the sports section? A great puff piece on Women on Target? Can NRA get a non-profit discount? Inquiring minds want to know!

More on Fred Madden

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:12:22 +0000

Cemetery has a link to a letter he receieved from Fred “One-Gun-a-Month” Madden, assuring him that he was against the the one-gun-a-month bill. Looks like New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense picked up on this one too. I wonder what Fred’s spiel is now?

PSH in Tennessee

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:02:46 +0000

Looks like some folks are planning on suing over the restaurant carry thing. Walls of the City points out how ridiculous the suit is. You also have cities claiming that public streets are no such thing. Louisville had a similar setup, though without the metal detectors. You had to present ID and be over 21 to walk down the street. I figured carry was fine as long as you weren’t drinking or at the bar. Kentucky’s law allows carry in restaurants, just not the bar area. I’m pretty sure carry is fine down that street in TN too. Someone needs to challenge that.

Fred Madden Does Not Support Law Enforcement

Sebastian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:06:29 +0000

New Jersey Senator Fred Madden and Governor Corzine apparently thinks it ought to be harder for law enforcement officers to get the firearms they need to protect themselves while on duty. While the New Jersey one-gun-a-month law provides exceptions for law enforcement, it doesn’t offer exemptions for the dealers many smaller law enforcement agencies purchase firearms from. Agencies that are too small for distributors to deal with directly.

A Legal Theory on Destructive Devices

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:28:20 +0000

It is important, I think, to come up with legal distinctions between certain types arms, protected by the Second Amendment, and other types of arms, which are unprotected. Even most people who believe in a very broad reading of the Second Amendment would generally agree the Second Amendment protects no right for someone to have a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction. Even if there is not agreement among Second Amendment activists about where the boundary ought to be, we can at least agree that there is a boundary, and distinctions must be made between arms that are protected, and those that are not.

The Second Amendment constructed by Heller protects the right of self-preservation, or more precisely, the tools necessary to exercise the right of self-preservation. Under that kind of interpretation, the courts would examine the device’s utility for that purpose, when seeking to discover whether it is an “arm” in the scope of the Second Amendment. It would seem unlikely that destructive devices of an explosive nature would be possessed for such a purpose. But as I’ve said before, I don’t think the courts can just consider self-preservation under normal circumstances, but must also consider extraordinary circumstances, to determine whether a particular arm is useful for self-defense, and should fall under Second Amendment protection. In the case of a .50 BMG vs. a pipe bomb or grenade, I think a distinction can be made.

The first distinction is that a .50BMG most definitely is useful for personal self-defense, in that it is a discriminate weapon, that can be aimed at a threat, and can disable that threat. A grenade is not so discriminate. It has to be lobbed a certain distance in order not to injure the thrower, and is only very generally discriminative, in that the shrapnel it sends in all directions does not distinguish between friend and foe, and can cause considerable collateral damage to property.

But I think there’s another distinction between the two. One can imagine a .50BMG being useful in a period of temporary civil disorder, such as a hurricane or an earthquake, where an ability to disable a vehicle, or shoot through cover, could mean the difference between self-preservation and being dead. One can also imagine a grenade, for instance, being useful for fending off multiple attackers. In either temporary, or a more lasting civil disorder, both could be useful. But obtaining a precision rifle, such as a .50BMG rifle, is probably going to be very difficult during civil unrest. Obtaining explosives is easy, as the ingredients to create them would be readily available even in the event of civil breakdown. In that instance, I think it’s not unreasonable to suggest that banning the manufacture or possession of pipe bombs does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, because under ordinary circumstances, they aren’t useful for self-defense, and under extraordinary circumstances, in the absence of law and order, they would be available. I think that likely strengthens the government’s case that the burden on self-defense is minimal.

Of course, this very fact makes the effectiveness of the law suspect, at best, since it wouldn’t be hard for those with criminal intent to make them under normal circumstances, but this isn’t an argument about what makes for good public policy, but about what is constitutional. When it comes to that, I’m willing to accept a Second Amendment that doesn’t cover destructive devices, if their exclusion makes the federal courts more likely to offer stronger protections to other small arms. The burden created on my ability to defend myself is minimal, and even for those who argue that the Second Amendment is meant to guard against tyrannical government, let’s face it, under those kinds of circumstances, pipe bombs aren’t going to be hard to come by.

Explosives vs. Destructive Devices

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:42:47 +0000

I should note, based on some of the conversation going on in the previous post, that there’s a difference between a destructive device and an explosive. True, that explosives are often a component of destructive devices, but merely being an explosive doesn’t qualify. Also, not all things that make loud noises, or somewhat resemble the action of an explosive, are actually explosives.

Generally speaking, the possession of explosives by civilians is regulated at both the federal and state level, but is not terribly restrictive under most circumstances. You can get a license, without too much difficulty, to manufacture and handle explosives. Federal regulations contain distinctions between explosives, pyrotechnics, and blasting agents, but generally, aren’t regulated as destructive devices.

What makes something a destructive device, according to federal regulations is that it is “designed or redesigned for use as a weapon.” Generally speaking, a pipe bomb is a destructive device that contains explosives. What makes it a destructive device is that the “pipe” which surrounds the explosive is meant to fragment and send shrapnel in all directions, traveling along with the blast wave created by the explosive. The government would argue that the only reason to possess such a device is as a weapon. The court, in the case mentioned, found it unlikely such a device would be possessed for the purposes of self-defense, given the indiscriminate nature of a shrapnel driven by explosives.

Arizona Restaurant Carry Goes to Governor

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:25:09 +0000

Word came this morning that Arizona’s Senate passed restaurant carry. Assuming Governor Brewer (who spoke at the NRA Convention) signs it, it will make Phoenix a fantastic city for future NRA meetings. Those of us from out of town won’t have to make the call between leaving guns unattended in hotel rooms or just going to dinner at a joint that happens to serve beer.

UPDATE: Here’s the NRA press release.

Gillibrand to Face a Primary

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:10:44 +0000

It appears to be official, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is going to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for her Senate seat.

Geraghty is right that Maloney is no friend of gun owners. But then again, neither is Kirsten Gillibrand since going to the Senate. Don’t get me wrong, Maloney would be a disaster for gun owners, but I won’t shed a tear if Gillibrand loses the seat in a primary.

UPDATE: And if the first poll stands, there will be quite a knock down fight.

Feds Out of Control, Part II

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:04:44 +0000

Looks like the FDA panel considering regulatory changes to acetominophen has decided that Percoset and Vicodin have to go. This is going to essentially mean that people who have procedures that cause mild to severe pain, like having wisdom teeth removed, or having a minor surgery, are going to find it very difficult to find pain relief.

Percoset and Vicodin are both combination therapies, combing acetaminophen with oxycodone, in the case of Percoset, and hydrocodone, in the case of Vicodin. Because of this, they are Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Regulators feel the acetaminophen content makes the drug less likely to be abused, so it is so classified. That doesn’t stop people from trying, however, and a number of people each year fry their livers either by taking too much, or because they did some failed home chemistry trying to separate the narcotic drug from its codrug.

Oxycodone and hydrocodone, on their own, are both Schedule II drugs, meaning they have a theraputic use, but are likely to cause addiction and be abused. Doctors are very reluctant to prescribe Schedule II drug, because they attract more heat from regulators. There are also additional restrictions on Schedule II drugs, such as a doctor’s office not being able to call in a new prescription (it takes a physical, written prescription to make changes to dose, or get a refill). If this is the only option available, many doctors, oral surgeons, periodontists, and various other medical professionals who often have a need to treat pain, are less likely to prescribe narcotic pain killers. While this would probably be just fine by regulators, if you’re in pain and can’t find relief, a narcotic is often the only thing that will do the job.

Fortunately, there are a few alternatives, although they are expensive. One is Vicoprofen, which is a combination of ibuprofen and vicodin. For many people, it’s a viable alternative to narcotics in combination with acetaminaphen, but for many people, it is not. Particularly people with gastrointestinal disorders, people taking blood thinners, or people with inflammatory bowel disease. Another is good old fashioned Tylenol with Codeine, but unfortunately, for 10% or so of the population, their livers lack the enzyme necessary to convert codeine to morphine, which makes the drug’s narcotic component useless to them.

Don’t think, either, that just because many OTC pain releivers and many narcotics are both GRAS, or Generally Reocnigzed as Safe, that you can just combine them at will, and sell them on the market. Combination therapies have to go through the FDA approval process as if they were new drugs, which means major costs to do the clinical trials. No pharmaceutical company is going to do that without patent protection. In short, if Vicoprofen doesn’t work for you, you’re screwed. You can suffer in pain. Hope and Change has come, folks!

Pipe Bombs Not Protected by Second Amendment

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:24:25 +0000

Eugene Volokh has a summary of the ruling from the 11th circuit. Eugene Volokh speaks of the entertainment value also, but a pipe bomb is a destructive device. You can have plenty of fun with things that go boom without making a destructive device. Just ask Joe. Of course, this is ignoring the “defense from tyrannical government” argument, which I think is important, but I think the government should have power to regulate explosive ordnance, or other items that have little use for self-defense, and pose an inherent risk to the community, no matter how responsible a person is.

You Know the Political Fight Isn’t in Too Sorry Shape …

Sebastian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:32:39 +0000

… when there’s more passionate debate going on in the gun blogosphere about shooting. Hey, I’m happy just being able to watch this one from a detached distance.