This guy should get a Nobel Prize

And/or a Medal of Freedom.

Something.

I love his line about "over-engineering revenge."

NASA. Get it? Space?

Short read of the day: The Gresham’s Law of Law

Recently started receiving the daily digest from Law & Liberty, maintained by the Liberty Fund, same folks who do the Online Library of Liberty.

Here's an example of why:

 The Gresham's Law of Law - Law & Liberty

by Mike Rappaport

In economics, Gresham’s Law is the law that say “bad money drives out good money.” In law, there is a similar law – deviant or problematic lawmaking drives out orthodox or legitimate lawmaking. This occurs in both constitutional law and administrative law.

Let’s start with constitutional law. The law of the Constitution is supposed to be established through the constitutional enactment process and the constitutional amendment process. Yet, it is well known that the Supreme Court does not always follow this legitimate method of constitutional law making, and instead changes or updates the Constitution through judicial lawmaking.

It is sometimes thought that these two types of lawmaking can coexist, but it has become increasingly clear that this is not the case. Since the New Deal, and especially as the Court has engaged in more judicial updating, the constitutional amendment process has atrophied. The main reason is that a constitutional amendment can only pass if it is supported by a consensus of the country. And developing a consensus may take a long time and may require compromise.

And then there's administrative law. Just as Constitutional Amendments don't happen due to Supreme Court rulings, Congress leaves most rule-making up to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Go read the whole thing, like I said, it's short.

Mr. Bad Example

So, what spare time I've had the last week or two had mostly been spent transcribing my notes from MAG40. I think I'll pass on posting a day-by-day AAR and just post the outstanding things from it.

When I'm ready.

In the meantime... I often pass on posting about things in the news, because others post about them so much better. But sometimes...

As seen on View From The Porch: See this? Don't do this?

Man, 20, killed by shotgun blast outside northeast Raleigh home | News & Observer

This. This right here is why we can't have nice things.

(And actually ties in with some of the things covered in MAG40.)

Acknowledging that the press almost always leaves important details out, and that events as described by friends and family of the deceased are biased and not to be trusted...

A bunch of young males in their late teens and early twenties at, or leaving, a party two doors down does not sound like "hoodlums and vandals."

The part that really caused me to face palm so hard I almost gave myself a concussion was this:

I fired my warning shot like I’m supposed to by law.

Not only is there no legal requirement to fire a warning shot, but police are generally prohibited from firing warning shots. 

And, sweet Jesus, if you HAVE to fire a warning shot, shoot into the ground!

The 911 calls include this:

12:50 a.m. “We’ve got a bunch of hoodlums out here. I’m locked and loaded, and I’m going outside to secure my neighborhood. You need to send PD as quickly as possible.”

and

“You need to send PD as quickly as possible, I’m on neighborhood watch. I’m gonna have the neighbors with me. There’s hoodlums out here racing up and down the street. It’s 1 o’clock in the morning, um, there’s some vandalism.”

and

12:57 a.m. “We have a lot of people outside our house, yelling and shouting profanities. I yelled at them, ‘Please leave the premises.’ They were showing a firearm, so I fired a warning shot and, uh, we got somebody that got hit.”

at which the dispatcher asked (reasonably enough)

“Someone was shot?” the operator asked.
“Well, I don’t know if they were shot or not, ma’am,” he told her. “I fired my warning shot like I’m supposed to by law. They do have firearms, and I’m trying to protect myself and my family.”
The operator asked who had come to his house.
“Ma’am, I don’t know who they are,” the man said. “There’s frigging black males outside my frigging house with firearms. Please send PD.”

Okay, so...

• Neighborhood Watch is no more a license to kill than a concealed carry permit. 
• The evidence as presented in this article makes it sound like no one got further than a few feet onto the idiot's property. 
• At this point, we only have the idiot's word that anyone had anything resembling a firearm besides him.
• And since the evidence makes it sound like he fired from inside the garage, through a window, it hard to see what made him feel he or his family were in such danger that discharging a shotgun was necessary.

The bad part, aside from all the people who have been writing and training about these things for years having apparently done so in a giant exercise in futility, is that there are people out there who will read this little screed of mine, and similar ones by others who are more experienced, have taken more training, and have more exposure, and excoriate us for "abandoning" this guy. (Not to mention NRA, SAF, etc.)

Make no mistake: There may be evidence to come that will change this to another "Good Guy With A Gun" story, but at this point this moron is a moron who deserves to be locked up, and only trotted out when a Bad Example is needed.

James Comey Should Resign

That is all.

Senator Cruz Speaks

The transcript of his address on the Senate floor yesterday (video in my previous post) is here: GUN WATCH: Senator Cruz Defends 2A from the Floor of the Senate, Excoriates Obama Terrorism Failures.

It would make me very happy if the GOP were to nominate Senator Cruz...

"NRA-ILA | NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists"

So Trump tweets that he'll meet with the NRA about not letting people on "a watchlist" buy a gun. 

Naturally, folks started losing their minds, because "The NRA's selling us out again!"

NRA-ILA | NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists: The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump.  The NRA's position on
this issue has not changed.  The NRA believes that terrorists should not
be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period.  Anyone on a terror
watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by
the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.  If an
investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement,
the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the
sale, and arrest the terrorist.  At the same time, due process
protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who
are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.  That has been the
position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S.
Senate.  Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play
politics with this issue.

See, the problem is with the nature of a "watchlist."

One recalls that numerous people found themselves on the "No Fly" list who did not belong there.^*

And just how does one wind up on a watchlist?

Good question.

And how does one get off a watchlist if one does not belong there?

Good question.

In Tamara's post "Who watches the watch list?" we find this article: The Problem With Banning Guns From People On The Terrorist Watch List | ThinkProgress.

Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people. A leak revealed that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.

One and a half million. 1,500,000.

Somewhere along the line, it developed that the douchebag Orlando murderer -- I refuse to name him -- had been on a "watchlist" while the FBI investigated him for whatever they were investigating him for, and then they dropped the investigation because they found no evidence of actual, you know, crimes having been committed, and poof!, he was off the watchlist.

The FBI pointed out that doing things like denying the douchebag from being able to buy a gun might tip him off that he was on a watchlist, which might result in compromising the investigation.

This,of course, ignores the fact that we are talking about denying people their constitutional rights because they are suspected of maybe having done something naughty.

Or  not.

I find it curious (there's a nice, neutral word!) that so many of the people who pitch a fit over the thought of having to provide ID to proof of eligibility to vote want to deny people the right to keep and bear arms over claimed statements of opinion.

So... What other Constitutional Rights should be compromised if one is on one of the mysterious watchlists? Since Facebook seems to figure so prominently in the radiclaization of J. Random Douchebag, maybe we should Internet access, and other aspects of First Amendment activity as well?

And, hey, they're accused of being terrorists, or at least terrorist sympathizers and enablers, so maybe we should throw out that pesky Fifth Amendment, as well! Which, come to think of it, that damned Fourth Amendment restricting search and seizure, etc., etc., sure gets in the way!

The Sixth is already on life support, so why bother?

So...

Frankly, I think the NRA's statement is lukewarm, at best, but it's something. 

ETA: Here is what Ted cruz has to say:


* Granted Teddy Kennedy belonged on the "no drive" list...

Upcoming Law of Self Defense Seminars

Andrew Branca sent an email today in which he posted the following scheduled Law of Self Defense Seminars:

Upcoming Law of Self Defense Seminars

As I've mentioned, I am preparing a major re-location from Massachusetts to Colorado within the next couple of months, and have blocked out most of the summer to allow for our move.  The pace really picks up again late summer and into the fall. As usual, all seminars are state-specific, with some covering just the state in which they are being held while others also cover adjoining states.

August 7:  Raleigh NC
August 13: OR & WA:  Portland OR
August 20: TN & KY: Nashville TN
September 10: Talladega AL
October 1: PA & NJ:  Philadelphia PA
October 15: Arizona NM
October 16: TX & NM: El Paso TX

We'll have plenty more seminars scheduled all over the country. Just click here to learn about seminars coming in YOUR state!

 As I said back in February of this year,

...I will wrap it up by saying that the experience was well worth the money, and it is highly recommended; if you cannot attend the appropriate session for your state, and are at all concerned about the legal aspects of self-defense, then you should at least read Andrew's book, and see about bringing him to your neck of the woods.

"Law of Self Defense", Andrew Branca

On Valentine's Day, Mrs. Drang and I went on a very romantic outing to attend a seminar by Andrew Branca on the Law of Self Defense in Washington and Oregon. Andrew is the author of the book by the same title, available at his web site Law of Self Defense, or on Amazon. Because, after all, what isn't available on Amazon these days? (Ammo. Ammo isn't available on Amazon. And kittens.)(I think.)

As responsible gun owners we all know that, to borrow a phrase from President Reagan, much of what folks know about self-defense just isn't so.  By now one benefit of all those forensic crime shows on TV is that people should be aware of the fact that it is not, in fact, a good idea to shoot the bad guy on your front porch and drag him inside, but that does not mean that common sense necessarily prevails in all cases.

It is a common place to say that you are justified in using deadly force in self-defense if you were in fear for your life or safety, but is it enough to say "I was in fear for my life"? What about the common advice to ask for your lawyer and then clam up, refusing to say anything? What will the police make of that, and what if that lawyer doesn't magically appear right away?

As for the self-defense claim, much of the class was spent going over the 5 factors that go into making up justified acts of self-defense:

1. Innocence
2. Imminence
3. Proportionality
4. Avoidance (we'll come back to this...)
5. Reasonableness

Other topics included Defense of Others, Defense of Property, Consciousness of Guilt (and how it can impact your legal defense),  Self-Defense Immunity, and Interacting with the Police. (These are all straight out of the syllabus. The presentation PowerPoint slides -- yes, I still think PowerPoint is a tool of the devil! -- were available for purchase in a printed, bound book, and I'm glad I did!)(Andrew made good use of it, BTW, speaking to the audience, not the screen, and not simply reading each slide.)

The discussions of each of these topics were salted liberally (pardon the expression) with citations of the statutes, regulations, court decisions and case law, and in some cases jury instructions, that impacted the points being discussed for both Oregon and Washington State.

For example, sources of Self-Defense law in Oregon include:

• Oregon Revised Statutes SS161.190, Justification as a defense
• Case law: State v. Wolf, 317 P.3d (OR Ct. App. 2013)
• Jury Instructions: Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions (UCrJI) No. 1107 Defense-Physical Force-Defense of Person

(Note that Andrew's book goes over much of this statutory material; that is, each chapter discusses key points and has an appendix with citations form statutes and case law form each state where such exists. So if you can't get to his seminar, you can still read his book.)

Part of the reason I have waited two weeks before posting this review of the class is that I have been debating how much I should say about the content. I am not a lawyer. I am not qualified to give legal advice (assuming anyone would be fool enough to take legal advice from a blog post...) So I think that I will just cover a couple of points I found notable, and suggest that, if you are interested, you purchase Andrew's book, and if he does not have a seminar scheduled where you can get to one, you should try and see if a local gun club or range/training facility would be interested in hosting him.

I alluded above to an exception to the "Self Defense Factor" "Avoidance"; this came up as part of a lengthy discussion of "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground".

Avoidance imposes a duty to retreat; under certain circumstances there is no duty to retreat. Generally speaking, you have no duty to retreat in your home, AKA "Castle Doctrine". (Unless it is also the home of the person attacking you.) Some states extend the definition of "home" to the boundaries of the home, some stop them at the exterior walls. Even if there is  duty to retreat it only applies if one can do so safely; jumping off a cliff does not count.

Stand Your Ground is different; "SYG" laws generally say something to the effect that "one need not flee an attack if one is where one has a legal right to be."

Note that while "SYG" may be included in statute, it may still be advisable to retreat if one may do so safely! Why be there when trouble comes looking for you? Just because the law says you do not have to avoid it, does not mean you shouldn't make it work...

Washington State is what Andrew referred to as a "Hard" Stand Your Ground jurisdiction, as explained in the Pattern Jury Instructions:

WPIC 16.08 No Duty To Retreat
It is lawful for a person who in a place where that person has a legal right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that [he][she] is being attacked to stand [his][her] ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force. The law does not impose a duty to retreat.

And also in at least one court opinion:

In Washington, one who is assaulted in a place he has a right to be has no duty to retreat. Flight, however reasonable an alternative to violence, is not required.
State v. Williams, 916 P.2d 445 (WA Ct. App. 1996)

Complicating the Stand Your Ground issue is the possibility of the prosecution in a criminal case, or a lawyer in a civil case, making the argument that you were the aggressor. In this case, you will want witnesses that you made efforts to de-escalate and leave the scene, in order to "regain your innocence", as it were.

Oregon does not have statutory law regarding Stand Your Ground; however, in the 2007 case State v. Sandoval (156 P.3d 60) the Oregon Supreme Court rendered the following opinion :

Nothing in [Oregon self-defense statutes] suggests that a person who reasonably believe that another person is about to use deadly force against them must calculate whether it is possible to retreat from that threat before they use deadly physical force in self defense.

 Which sounds great except that, in a footnote, advised that "a person who wishes to avoid criminal liability may well be required to avoid the danger..."

Which seems prudent anyway, if you can.

On another front, neither Oregon nor Washington State have any self-defense immunity from either criminal prosecution or civil suit. Washington does, however, have a (so far as I know) unique Self-Defense reimbursement law under 9A.16.110 of the Revised Code of Washington, if it is determined in a trail that you acted in self-defense, the state can be required to reimburse you of you for the expenses incurred in defending yourself at trial.

I have never heard of this being done. I am also unaware of any charges being dropped because the prosecutor decided it was not worth it due to this. Nor do I know anyone who has volunteered to be a test case.

I see that I have barely scratched the surface of this seminar. The slide deck ran to nearly 420 slides, counting the conclusion, and I have skipped much material, as much to keep this post a manageable length and to avoid getting over my head on legal technicalities as to avoid getting sued by a lawyer for copyright infringement. (Just kidding!)(I think...)

So I will wrap it up by saying that the experience was well worth the money, and it is highly recommended; if you cannot attend the appropriate session for your state, and are at all concerned about the legal aspects of self-defense, then you should at least read Andrew's book, and see about bringing him to your neck of the woods.


NOTE for Washingtonians: Dave Workman's excellent book Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities covers a lot of ground that Andrew's book and seminar did not, like Open Carry, where you can and cannot carry in the state, reciprocity, and so forth. Also highly recommended.

Officer Involved Shooting, Seattle, 02/21/2016

From the Seattle Police Department Blog:
SPD Releases Dashcam, Photos From Officer-Involved Shooting of Armed Felon In North Seattle

The Seattle Police Department is releasing photos and video from a fatal officer-involved shooting, which occurred Sunday as officers attempted to arrest a felon illegally armed with a handgun.
Around 3:30 PM police were conducting surveillance in the 2200 block of Northeast 85^th Street as part of an ongoing investigation. Officers observed a man with a holstered handgun, and identified him as Che Taylor, 46, a convicted violent felon, legally prohibited from possessing a handgun. Taylor’s criminal history includes convictions for assault, robbery and rape.
At approximately 4:15, officers called for additional units to assist in taking the suspect into custody. As Taylor stood at the passenger door of a white Ford Taurus, a marked patrol vehicle with emergency lights on pulled up facing the Taurus.
An SPD arrest team then approached the vehicle to take Taylor into custody. Officers ordered Taylor to show his hands and get on the ground. He did not follow officers’ commands, and instead leaned into the Taurus.
According to officers, as well as a civilian witness interviewed by investigators, Taylor reached for his handgun, leading officers to fire.
Officers detained the other two people in the car and called for medics. Police performed CPR on Taylor at the scene until medics arrived. He later died at Harborview Medical Center.
Detectives are still serving warrants as part of the investigation, but have recovered Taylor’s firearm, When Taylor arrived at Harborview Medical Center, he was carrying approximately 6 ounces of suspected crack cocaine and black tar heroin. Officers booked one of the other people in the vehicle into the King County Jail for possession of a significant quantity of suspected heroin.

This is the OIS I referred to in the intro to my previous post, that has local activists all riled up.
‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters demand firing of police chief after fatal shooting | The Seattle Times
Mayor, police chief promise timely update on fatal shooting of black man | The Seattle Times
Because a known convicted felon open-carrying a pistol during a drug deal is obviously in the clear...

Damn it

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch. http://tiny.iavian.net/8ymq

"Overruled" - Book report and commentary

Just finished reading Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court, by Damon Root. This is, essentially, a libertarian history of the US Supreme Court.

That Is, perhaps, a poor description, in the sense that it makes it sound simultaneously dry as hell and also written by a wide-eyed, sky-castle dwelling, dreamer.

Not so.

Amazon's synopsis:

Should the Supreme Court defer to the will of the majority and uphold most democratically enacted laws? Or does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to protect a broad range of individual rights from the reach of lawmakers? In this timely and provocative book, Damon Root traces the long war over judicial activism and judicial restraint from its beginnings in the bloody age of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction to its central role in today's blockbuster legal battles over gay rights, gun control, and health care reform.

It's a conflict that cuts across the political spectrum in surprising ways and makes for some unusual bedfellows. Judicial deference is not only a touchstone of the Progressive left, for example, it is also a philosophy adopted by many members of the modern right. Today's growing camp of libertarians, however, has no patience with judicial restraint and little use for majority rule. They want the courts and judges to police the other branches of government, and expect Justices to strike down any state or federal law that infringes on their bold constitutional agenda of personal and economic freedom.

Overruled is the story of two competing visions, each one with its own take on what role the government and the courts should play in our society, a fundamental debate that goes to the very heart of our constitutional system.

And it's actually quite interesting, or at least, I found it so.

I also found the  repeated use by the court of the reasoning expressed by Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr., in Blodgett v. Holden (1927), that

...as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.

to be, well, shocking.

So, you're telling me that the Supreme Court is supposed to be predisposed to allow Congress run roughshod over the Constitution?

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

"Judicial Deference" they call it, "Judicial Restraint."

Appalling, I call it.

This, of course, is how the Roberts Court can rule that a tax is a fine is a tax, depending on the application, and therefore is, and isn't, subject to what the Constitution says on the matter of taxes. Also, how when a law refers to "The State" it acutally means "The government at any level."

And how previous courts can hold that  marijuana grown in the backyard of a person with a legitimate prescription can somehow be held to impact "interstate commerce."

As for the book: Root writes well, presenting difficult legal concepts and arguments in a straight-forward style, making them easy to grasp.

I can't help that note that we also seem to have entered an era of Legislative Deference, in which the tools in charge of the congress will work harder to please th Imperial President than to obey the Constitution.

One thing I was surprised to learn was that, when Alan Gura took the case that would become Heller v. DC, he was not yet working with the Second Amendment Foundation, but rather for The Institute for Justice. SAF came along later, after NRA had tried to convince IJ that Heller was the wrong case at the wrong time...

The Greatest "Crimestoppers" Spot EVER!!!

Tar, Feathers...

How Government Stifled Reason's Free Speech - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Politicians and minions decorating lampposts...

 I note that the article cites a First Amendment Right to Privacy.

On which note I close with this message for Facebook:

About that... OPM Data Breach Edition

Insty has a link to an ABC report: Instapundit » Blog Archive » MASSIVE OPM HACK EVEN WORSE THAN THOUGHT: OPM Hack Far Deeper Than Publicly Acknowledged, Went Undetected For More Than A Year, Sources Say...

The massive hack into federal systems announced last week was far deeper and potentially more problematic than publicly acknowledged, with hackers believed to be from China moving through government databases undetected for more than a year, sources briefed on the matter told ABC News.

"If [only] they knew the full extent of it," one U.S. official said about those affected by the intrusion into the Office of Personnel Management's information systems.

It all started with an initial intrusion into OPM's systems more than a year ago, and after gaining that initial access the hackers were able to work their way through four different "segments" of OPM's systems, according to sources.

By some accounts, the data exposed goes back 20 or 30 years.

And may have been stored unencrypted.

It inspired this: Rick Wilson's rant on OPM breach (with tweets) · faceattack · Storify

Which came out BEFORE this: Daily Pundit: OPM Got Hacked Because It Handed Root to the People’s Republic of China Three Years Ago
Quoting Ars Technica:

A consultant who did some work with a company contracted by OPM to manage personnel records for a number of agencies told Ars that he found the Unix systems administrator for the project “was in Argentina and his co-worker was physically located in the [People’s Republic of China]. Both had direct access to every row of data in every database: they were root. (!!!) Another team that worked with these databases had at its head two team members with PRC passports. I know that because I challenged them personally and revoked their privileges. From my perspective, OPM compromised this information more than three years ago and my take on the current breach is ‘so what’s new?'”

(Emphasis added)

But good news! Now it will get traction: Instapundit » Blog Archive » A DEBACLE OF THE FIRST ORDER: OPM tells lawmakers their information was likely stolen….

QOTD, I-594 Edition

Followed this link (Monopolies, Mercantilism, Illegal Buttons, and Saltpeter Men | Libertarianism.org*) on facespace to one of these new-fangeled podcast thingies -- don't partake, as I just don't do the things folks do where listening to podcasts would be appropriate --  because this salient quote was the lead-in:

An absurd law, precisely because it is absurd, will generate widespread contempt and noncompliance among the people. This makes enforcement difficult for a government, which can impose its will only through draconian measures. Laws may be humorous, but their enforcement rarely is.
George H. Smith

Seems that the crafters of law should keep this in mind.

*"George H. Smith offers a glance at a few economic regulations throughout history."

Voted today...

Voted today.

(I keep telling the state I retired, but they keep sending me Military and Overseas Ballots.)

(For my non-Evergreen state friends, Washington went 100% mail ballot several years ago.)

Saw that Dan "I love Initiative 594" Satterberg is running unopposed for re-election as King County Prosecutor.

I wrote in Alan Gottleib.

It's The Law!

In Washington State,

Defendants who claim self-defense, and win their cases, are entitled to reimbursement for lost wages and other costs, a Washington state appeals court has ruled.

It's been the law in WA for a while that, if you successfully argued "self-defense" and won, you would be reimbursed for d=legal costs. Now the State Appeals Cpourt says you can be reimbursed for other costs as well, including lost wages. Defendant wins back wages, other costs in ‘stand-your-ground’ ruling | Local News | The Seattle Times

In its ruling, the appeals court leaned on an earlier Washington state Supreme Court case that said the reimbursement law was broadly meant to ensure that no “costs of defense” are borne by a person acting legally to protect his or her life. Thus, in Villanueva’s case, the Court of Appeals said, the lost wages “constituted lawful earnings he would have received but for being prosecuted.”

The court went on to rule that because Villanueva was also defending himself legally after the trial, through the appeals process on the monetary reimbursement question, he had piled up additional reimbursable defense costs since the verdict, the judges said.

“Therefore, we award him reasonable appellate costs,” the order said, in sending the case back to the trial court to determine what a reasonable added amount should be.

The original arrest was in 2010, he was acquitted in 2012, and the appeals court just made it's decision. Alas, that this counts as "swift" justice in today's America.

Hurrah that I live in a state with such a law, though.

Sure are a lot of frakin' idiots out there...

Rallies large and small follow Zimmerman verdict

Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till?  Really?

And I just lost whatever respect I may have had left for the NAACP:

The NAACP... called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman

And...

In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. "You can't justify murder," read one poster.

Either the concept of "self-defense" has escaped them, or they have separate definitions based on... Oh, I don't know, the amount of melanin in ones epidermis?

Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. "I was really devastated. It's really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free," she said.

And would she have felt this way if she had happened to read (on page B-7 of the local fish-wrap) that Trayvon Martin had bashed George Zimmerman's head in?

Meanwhile, apparently there was supposed to be a rally in downtown Seattle this evening in support of "Justice for Trayvon."

No riots anywhere that I have heard, but I bet you could start one by suggesting that that's what we got...

NOT GUILTY!

Zimmerman Verdict Reached: NOT GUILTY | Live video | Protests Reactions

In the immortal words of Davey Crockett...

"You can go to Hell, I'm goin' to Texas."

AR15.com is one of the bigger, and probably controversial, gun boards.  I was quite active there, mostly in the Washington State Hometown Forum, until most of the regulars there jumped ship; I left when they did, although I didn't have the issues they did. To extend a metaphor one of those regulars used when discussing the WAHTF, if you hung out at Joe's Bar because of the house band, and the band opened it's own place, you'd switch to the new place. 

(BTW, the concept of "Hometown Forums"came from one of the WA members; possibly for that reason, the WAHTF was far and away the busiest of all the HTFs, even beyond Texas.)

Anyway.  When suit was filed in New York State against Cuomo's SAFE Act, AR15.com was listed as a plaintiff.  Word came a week or two ago that they were dropping out on advice of council; basically, it was felt that their status as a plaintiff might prejudice the case. Kudos to Ed Avila, Sr., et alia for agreeing to Do The Right Thing.

Now, as a next step, they've decided to act on Col. Crockett's advice, and are moving to Texas.  To that end they are selling off guns. 

Lots of guns. 

Rules in the first link above.  Go, read, shop, and support them.