In the lead article, top of page 1, Alan Gottlieb describes this latest example of California's seemingly innate ability to flee from reality as the return of "Jim Crow".
Personally, I believe that this is something of an "overstatement", for more likely, what we see with the imposition of this new Handgun Safety Certificate requirement is simply another example of THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW, with the politicians seeking to pick the pockets of what they likely view as a "powerless" group. One wonders as to how long it will be before the fee charged for this HSC increases? It's all of a piece with such scams as the 1967 enacted requirement in New York City for the registration of long guns owned by city residents, and kept within the city. The original fee was $5.00, which covered as many rifles and or shotguns as were registered. Last time I inquired, the fees had increases "somewhat". It had become $50.00 per gun/per year. Large "crime prevention" measure that. Possibly the fees are higher nowadays. A page 9 story impacts on this same pre-emotion question.
Second item is found in Industry News, page 3, and deals with the arrest of Omar Pineda, a leather worker who owns Alfonso's of Hollywood Leather Co., and makes among other leather items, holsters. Mr. Pineda is not involved in the sale of firearms. He did however, fall victim, via a sting operation, to a Los Angeles ordinance that prohibits the sale of what it describes as "ultracompact handguns", AND HOLSTERS for same. I suppose that "ultra compact handbags" might be the next items that provide grievous offense to the law givers of Los Angeles. Be that as it may, one might reasonably inquire as to the following. Given that a pre-emption law that has been in the California statute books since 1968 or so, why in blazes isn't it being enforced? Exactly what is the function of the State Attorney General, other than to conceal from the public, data that doesn't fit his pet notions and or preferences?
Readers Forum, page 4 includes a rather interesting item, this one dealing with the differences between life and police work as depicted on television and or films, and the above mentioned, as they actually exist. It appears that the differences are marked, which should surprise nobody. Most interestingly, Ms. Oxenberg, one of the screen writers involved in a real life shoot out, later described her experience in the following terms. "Life and gun battles are a hell of a lot more chaotic than they're portrayed in our pathetic profession". While some practitioners of the screen writing profession might be "pathetic", in that they literally wallow and glory in ongoing ignorance of what they write about, and are therefore "pathetic" as individuals, the profession of screen writing, when properly done, is no more pathetic than is the practice of law, or the driving of trucks.
For something on abuse of power, or at the very least, the questionable use of same, see the page 12 article headlined "Sheriff Criticized ..." . Why on earth would the county sheriff mentioned in the article in effect "register" law abiding citizens who hold Concealed Carry Licenses or Permits with the state agency involved with the handling of "criminal information". Sheriff Alderden is quoted as observing that "there isn't anything that says I can't do this". Perhaps so, however one is given to recall a line from the film, Jurassic Park, where one of the characters who was opposed to the recreation of dinosaurs responded to anther's observation that "we can do this", with the following. "Yes, we can, but should we"? The character obviously felt that some things shouldn't be done, notwithstanding mans ability to do them. Quite possibly, the same admonition applies to the action of Sheriff Alderden.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again been over ruled. How many times would this make it? Story also on page 12.
Finally, it strikes me that the climax is well and truly capped with the following, see Hindsight, page 15, in particular the section headed New History, wherein currently Bradley A. Buckles, Director of ATF speaks to the movement of part of the agency to Justice, part remaining with Treasury. Buckles, in what appears to be a direct quote, spoke of the agencies "history of honorable service". The writer wonders as to whether this "honorable service" should be taken to include the shooting of Kenyon Ballew, which some might remember, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and ATF's yesterday it was a black dog, today it's a blue pig "ruling" concerning imported arms that were "suitable for, or readily adaptable to sporting use" one day, yet had by the next day, undergone some magical change, and weren't anymore. I guess that it depends on exactly how one spells "honorable".
Personally, I believe that this is something of an "overstatement", for more likely, what we see with the imposition of this new Handgun Safety Certificate requirement is simply another example of THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW, with the politicians seeking to pick the pockets of what they likely view as a "powerless" group. One wonders as to how long it will be before the fee charged for this HSC increases? It's all of a piece with such scams as the 1967 enacted requirement in New York City for the registration of long guns owned by city residents, and kept within the city. The original fee was $5.00, which covered as many rifles and or shotguns as were registered. Last time I inquired, the fees had increases "somewhat". It had become $50.00 per gun/per year. Large "crime prevention" measure that. Possibly the fees are higher nowadays. A page 9 story impacts on this same pre-emotion question.
Second item is found in Industry News, page 3, and deals with the arrest of Omar Pineda, a leather worker who owns Alfonso's of Hollywood Leather Co., and makes among other leather items, holsters. Mr. Pineda is not involved in the sale of firearms. He did however, fall victim, via a sting operation, to a Los Angeles ordinance that prohibits the sale of what it describes as "ultracompact handguns", AND HOLSTERS for same. I suppose that "ultra compact handbags" might be the next items that provide grievous offense to the law givers of Los Angeles. Be that as it may, one might reasonably inquire as to the following. Given that a pre-emption law that has been in the California statute books since 1968 or so, why in blazes isn't it being enforced? Exactly what is the function of the State Attorney General, other than to conceal from the public, data that doesn't fit his pet notions and or preferences?
Readers Forum, page 4 includes a rather interesting item, this one dealing with the differences between life and police work as depicted on television and or films, and the above mentioned, as they actually exist. It appears that the differences are marked, which should surprise nobody. Most interestingly, Ms. Oxenberg, one of the screen writers involved in a real life shoot out, later described her experience in the following terms. "Life and gun battles are a hell of a lot more chaotic than they're portrayed in our pathetic profession". While some practitioners of the screen writing profession might be "pathetic", in that they literally wallow and glory in ongoing ignorance of what they write about, and are therefore "pathetic" as individuals, the profession of screen writing, when properly done, is no more pathetic than is the practice of law, or the driving of trucks.
For something on abuse of power, or at the very least, the questionable use of same, see the page 12 article headlined "Sheriff Criticized ..." . Why on earth would the county sheriff mentioned in the article in effect "register" law abiding citizens who hold Concealed Carry Licenses or Permits with the state agency involved with the handling of "criminal information". Sheriff Alderden is quoted as observing that "there isn't anything that says I can't do this". Perhaps so, however one is given to recall a line from the film, Jurassic Park, where one of the characters who was opposed to the recreation of dinosaurs responded to anther's observation that "we can do this", with the following. "Yes, we can, but should we"? The character obviously felt that some things shouldn't be done, notwithstanding mans ability to do them. Quite possibly, the same admonition applies to the action of Sheriff Alderden.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again been over ruled. How many times would this make it? Story also on page 12.
Finally, it strikes me that the climax is well and truly capped with the following, see Hindsight, page 15, in particular the section headed New History, wherein currently Bradley A. Buckles, Director of ATF speaks to the movement of part of the agency to Justice, part remaining with Treasury. Buckles, in what appears to be a direct quote, spoke of the agencies "history of honorable service". The writer wonders as to whether this "honorable service" should be taken to include the shooting of Kenyon Ballew, which some might remember, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and ATF's yesterday it was a black dog, today it's a blue pig "ruling" concerning imported arms that were "suitable for, or readily adaptable to sporting use" one day, yet had by the next day, undergone some magical change, and weren't anymore. I guess that it depends on exactly how one spells "honorable".
