Why is certifying guns for sale in a state stupid? Because it creates idiocies like the one below:
THIS gun is approved for sale in California:
THIS gun is NOT approved for sale in California:
"But they look identical", you say. That's because they ARE identical. Well, except that the "unapproved" gun comes from the factory with 2 of these:
And the approved gun comes with 2 of these:
The above examples are for the XD-45. The XD-9 faces similar restrictions. The only difference between the guns, as-packaged, is the capacity of the magazine. In both cases, the "approved gun" is restricted to 10 round magazines for citizens. Of course, "law enforcement" is exempt from those restrictions, but that is another post for another day. Malum Prohibitum doesn't have to make sense, it just has to ensnare you in the web. The system cannot control honest men and women. They can only control criminals.
Do you understand yet?
Newbius
|||
FTC Note: "Traction Control" (well-regulatedmilitia.com/ffl) is a good vendor. I am using these images under 'fair use' and am linking back to the source site. I have not received anything of value in exchange for using his images or linking to him. He doesn't even know I exist. So, suck it. Go pick on Bank of America for their crap customer service and fraudulent lending practices. Oh, wait...
12 comments:
"The system cannot control honest men and women. They can only control criminals."
Is it just the cadence of my read of your words, or is that backward?
Law only controls the law abiding.
IIRC wasn't the black XD on the "approved list" but the bi-tone model, identical in all but color, not on the list?
That's even more moronic than approving based on mag capacity.
BTW unless Springfiled paid additional bribes for them, if you buff the Melonite off the slide down to a matte stainless finish the gun is suddenly banned. Say Springfield also pays the tax to "approve" the two-tone gun, and at the same time introduces an XD where the stainless slide in shined to a mirror finish...again not approved.
Up until VERY recently you could only buy a stainless PPK in .380, and you couldn't get a blued variant in Massachusetts.
Functional differences: Zero. Reason, S&W didn't want to pay approx 10,000 more money to get two near-identical guns on the Massachusetts, when they had lots of pistols and revolvers that WERE very different that needed to be "Approved"
North: I said 'control', not regulate. What leverage does GOV have over someone who voluntarily complies with the law? The victim accepts the sanction voluntarily. Now, what leverage does the GOV have over someone who is convicted of law-breaking? How many rights are lost by the citizen?
A law-breaker is not necessarily a criminal-at least not until he gets caught, tried, and convicted. Someone who goes 8 MPH over the speed limit (but has never been ticketed) is breaking the law. In the eyes of the system, is that person a criminal? Not until he is adjudicated after being ticketed and tried.
I see what you are saying, now.
Actually Newbius, since you are splitting hairs, let me pluck one of yours and split it: speeding, at least at 8 mph, is not a criminal violation. You can't BE a criminal by speeding, even after trial and guilty verdict. You have been adjudged responsible for a civil offense, that's all.
In an era of big government getting bigger, it is increasingly likely that ordinary citizens, those who usually obey the law, will run afoul of the law as more and more control is applied by GOV. It is therefore important to keep records of violations of civil offenses separate from violations of actual criminal laws.
Rivrdog: Fair enough. Want to split hairs on what constitutes a crime of Domestic Violence in the eyes of the State?
North:
That comes from Ayn Rand, where the state creates so many laws and regulations that a person cannot live without breaking some rule.
Then, the regulatory state owns you. Any GOV agent can make your like miserable for some obscure violation of a law or rule that you could not possibly know existed.
So, when the .GOV agent arrives (the moment you dread), you do whatever is necessary to placate him. You grovel and beg forgiveness, because if he gets out his clipboard and pencil and starts looking for violations, he will bankrupt you.
From Atlas Shrugged: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. ...There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
This isn't new.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
...
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. "
Alan: Exactly.
Unspoken in the exchange with Rearden is that the 'request' is backed by guns. When openly stated, the flack recoils as if something nasty is mentioned, yet it is the truth.
Another truth? When every request for redress is responded to by more of the same kind of abuse, then the People's answer defaults to violence. Every tyrant knows this in his heart, and yet they persist in hopes that they won't be the one who gets it when the time comes.
Jefferson had it right-a little rebellion every 20 years or so is good for the nation. It reminds everybody of their proper role. We are about 7 cycles overdue...
Newbius:
It is very difficult for someone to understand the beat-down power of the administrative state unless they have owned a business or otherwise engaged in some sort of regulated action.
The regulations are so voluminous and obscure that it is impossible to comply.
I'll use an example I know well. I work in the HazMat area.
The laws incorporate other laws by reference, and the rules incorporate other agency's rules by reference. And the laws make it a felony to violate a particular rule.
So a rule on respirators will call out a 5000 word OSHA rule, which in turn calls out a 150 page NIOSH rule, which calls out a 5 page EPA rule (and you'd better know all the interpretations of all those rules by all those agencies).
And the EPA rule also says that you have to follow the manufacturer's recommendations on how to use a piece of respiratory equipment. So now the owner's manual (plus all revisions, whether you know about them).
So you're a felon if you violate the OSHA rule (or any of their interpretations), or
The NIOSH determinations, plus any updates, or
The EPA rule and all of their interpretations, or
Any court rulings interpreting any of those rules, plus
The manufacturer's recommandations and all their interpretations.
So when the inspector shows up, you know that if he wants to, he can shut you down, bankrupt you, and probably put you in jail.
So you do whatever you can to make him happy, you kowtow when he finds a few violations and pray that he doesn't look any further.
And Ayn Rand's description is borne out. If the rules and simple and can be complied with, then when the inspector shows up, you don't have to be subservient. You are a sovereign citizen doing the right thing, and not subject to government whims because you aren't breaking any laws.
But when the rules are unknowable, then the .gov agent's power is unlimited. You are no longer a citizen, you are a servant to the bureaucrat, who is now your master.
That's not a book anymore. That's today. It's now.
Well, I believe that the Founder's response to a petty bureaucrat intent on destroying their livelihood would have been a bullet. The "3-S" response does act as a deterrent.
Recently, one of the mid-western presidential candidates remarked on how OSHA doesn't do compliance inspections on family farms (as related to him by an OSHA inspector): "Because the response would have been a shotgun in the face."
It seems that there is still a 'deterrent effect' in being armed...Even against petty tyrants from petty agencies not enumerated in the Constitution.
"Traction Control" (well-regulatedmilitia.com/ffl) is a good vendor. True
I am using these images under 'fair use' and am linking back to the source site. True
I have not received anything of value in exchange for using his images or linking to him. True
He doesn't even know I exist. False
You are on my daily RSS reading list.
Thanks for the linkage!
Post a Comment