Single mother Ivette Ros doesn’t go anywhere without her gun.
But the 37-year-old lost her job as a bank manager for bringing her gun to work at a Wells Fargo branch in Oldsmar.
“When we take our course for concealed weapons licenses, they do state the bank is a place we can take your weapon to, so I never thought otherwise until I was being questioned,” she said.
Ros doesn’t know who found out she was packing or how they found out, but she says bank security questioned her about the gun she was carrying. She says she was fired three days later. … (John Lott)
The courts, or at least lawyers, will fight this one out.
When I worked in the financial industry, the company was VERY clear there were to be no firearms on the premises. Period. Or in the parking lot; in our personal cars. Or at company-sponsored functions – even if we weren’t being paid or after-hours.
Over-reaching a bit, I think.
Thankfully, the Arizona State Legislature addressed the parking lot issue positively. And, as above, I suspect the other issues will be/or have been addressed in the courts or by lawyers.
Not exactly the same, but similarly…
I had a ‘friend’ some years back named Chip. I’ve written about him in these pages. He was a friend to me when I needed one, but was probably a sociopath. He was, at the very least passive-aggressive. We are no longer friends.
He was paranoid about being caught carrying a concealed weapon (before such a law existed in Arizona) so he did carry, openly. A lot. Now, as there was no CCW back then, the culture was different, and people were much more accepting of such behavior.
Back then banks were not off limits to gun carriers. They still are not, unless, of course the dreaded statutory sign is portrayed (in AZ.). But Chip would go to his bank regularly with his Colt Combat Commander in a belt holster for all to see.
I’m guessing some new clerk from a hoplophobic State saw it and freaked out. Nothing happened in the bank. He had done nothing wrong.
But, one Saturday morning about 0800, there was a knock on Chip’s apartment door. Two large suited individuals stood there, imposing. Chip used the pejorative word jamokes to describe them.
One spoke. “We don’ wan’ chuz carrying yor gun in da bank anymore.” (I’m certain his mimicking of the bank employee’s statement was slightly inaccurate in it’s portrayal.)
Chip nodded in the affirmative, and closed the door. Then, on Monday morning, he tracked down the bank president and called him. Such was his nature.
And he proceeded to dress down the bank, the bank president, his employees, his policies, and his lack of legal knowledge.
Then he moved his banking elsewhere. I’m certain THAT told the bank president!
I’m all about every able-bodied, legally-able citizen to be able to carry. Openly, concealed…I don’t care. ANYWHERE. Banks, schools, shopping malls, hospitals, where we work – anyplace bad stuff might happen.
Because bad stuff DOES happen. And we cannot predict where or when.
But, let’s not be dicks about it.
A shocking poll released Tuesday shows overwhelming majorities of people in Virginia, New York and New Jersey support a national gun registry.
The survey released Tuesday was done jointly by Roanoke College in Virginia, Rutgers-Eagleton in New Jersey and Siena College in New York. It shows that 68 percent of New York voters and a whopping 74 percent of New Jersey voters are in favor of establishing a national gun registry.
Even in the southern state of Virginia — which has gone blue in recent years — 63 percent want the federal government to track all guns.
“Given the exceptionally high numbers of support for President Obama and Hillary Clinton in this poll, it isn’t surprising that there would be high numbers of support for draconian gun control proposals,” he told me. (Emily Miller in The Washington Times, in part)
Mark (Walters) here. To EVERY AAR fan and gun owner who values their rights, I’ll call bullshit here. THIS is the biased garbage we fight against EVERY day! Sunday’s show focused on the importance of YOUR activism to counter this crap. You up for it?
While I agree with Mark Walters that the above is total B.S. - WHO CARES?
My rights are not negotiable nor subject to the result of a plebiscite – real or imagined. My rights are MINE. PERIOD. - Guffaw
Imagine if Freedom of Speech, or Religion, or the Press, or the Right to Assemble of any particular group or individual were up for debate as the result of a poll or a vote?
Oh wait. They are.
h/t Facebook, Armed American Radio, Emily Litella, Emily Miller
wirecutter spells it out. In spades!
Not OWNER. Not LEGAL RESIDENT. Occupant. You know, like all that junk mail you throw away pro-forma says on it.
A further observation from wirecutter personally…
I got news for you – if you even let a cop enter your house he can search it “for his own safety”. I found that out when my psycho ex tried to cut me and I called the cops to get it documented – 7 or 8 cops showed up (it must’ve been a slow night) and they immediately opened every door in the house looking for ‘assailants’, checking closets, behind furniture, even told me to open my safe which I refused to do. The final straw came when one of them opened a small box on the end table and I told them all they did NOT have my permission to go through my personal effects and to hit the porch, we’ll do the paperwork out there ‘for their own fucking safety’. Surprisingly they complied and everybody calmed down including myself. Hell, I even offered them all a cold beer.
But yeah, never let a cop into your house willingly. Besides, they can always say you consented to a search and it’s your word against theirs.
NOW comes the kicker! The vanguard of the dissenters against this decision is (wait for it)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg
Personally, I’d bet I’d agree more often with wirecutter than Justice Ginsburg on most things.
My good friend Old NFO discussed this most recent of ‘infamous’ drug deaths. I was reminded of the PBS Series on JAZZ. They’d mention some historic jazz figure, and then, more often than not came this line:
…and then, they died of an overdose…
Is it the artistic personality, fame, fortune or humanity which binds all these folks together? Are we all, at our core, addicts of some sort? (Wikipedia – List of Drug/Alcohol related deaths)
I come rife with an addictive personality. I have excess weight, due to compulsive overeating. I’m neurotic, but not particularly artistic. My real mother died when I was in grade school as a direct result of her cigarette addiction. She had emphysema. ( I remember her turning off the oxygen tank and lighting up!) My father was an alcoholic, ate too much and smoked cigars. I come by my addictions honestly. Even though I’m getting ‘help’ for my addictions, in all seriousness, I don’t expect to see 85, like my maternal grandfather did. My fraternal grandfather made it to 68. My own father to 61.
Today is my daughter’s birthday. She would have been 31. Auto accident, age 12.
At least it wasn’t drugs or alcohol.
Firehand shares that information with us…
Who’s actually committing the murders? A very small number
of people with particular connections.
No, our new focus isn’t on neighborhoods like Alton Park or East Chattanooga but instead on “hot” places” and “hot” people. In an article entitled, “The Story Behind the Nation’s Falling Body Count,” Kennedy writes, “Research on hot spots shows violence to be concentrated in ‘micro’ places, rather than ‘dangerous neighborhoods,’ as the popular idea goes. Blocks, corners, and buildings representing just five or six percent of an entire city will drive half of its serious crime.”
The same is true about people. “We now know that homicide and gun violence are overwhelmingly concentrated among serious offenders operating in groups: gangs, drug crews, and the like representing under half of one percent of a city’s population who commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”
Kennedy writes, “We also know some reliable predictors of risk: individuals who have a history of violence or a close connection with prior victims are far more likely to be involved in violence themselves. Hot groups and people are so hot that when their offending is statistically abstracted, their neighborhoods cease to be dangerous. Their communities aren’t dangerous; (these criminals) are.”
What’ve we been saying for years? ‘Stop worrying about objects and worry about the people who commit the crimes.’ Which seems to cover it nicely. Will the hoplophobes and bigots listen? Mostly no.
When someone bombs someone, do we blame the bomb? No, we blame the bomber. But guns are objects of scorn and derision, I suspect largely because of their portability and concealability.
And the people who commit crimes with guns are a very small minority of those possessing them.
Matt, a former blogger, occasional commenter and friend commented thus on a recent post of mine regarding the apparent wanton killing of a pinned suspect by ‘the authorities’.
I asked why such a thing could occur. His answer – because they can.
This is the crux of why I’m a libertarian, and not a left-wing socialist type. The Left seems to hold to the idea of the Philosopher King. Someone placed in charge by the gods to rule over us lesser folk, with wisdom and compassion. Even though many of them decry gods.
But, they forget kings are people. Human beings. Fallible, and with feet of clay. This is also why the
gun people control folks keep trying to tweak the system.
“If there is just one more law…” Yeah, right.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely? You bet!
I recall a story I heard some years ago about a local small business. The business had been burgled, and the sole proprietor diligently reported records of the missing property and damages to his insurance company and the authorities. They never caught the burglars. He received his insurance settlement and all was right with the world.
Except, because of all the damage, he mis-reported something that he thought stolen, and had been paid for it. And he tried to make things square with the insurance company and the police.
But, the insurance company filed a lawsuit against him, and made certain he was charged with filing a false police report!
The end result was he lost his business, his property, and was forced to pay a large fine.
As he stood in the back of the business behind the tape, watching ‘the authorities’ confiscate his remaining property, he asked one of the agents gleefully loading it up on government trucks, “Why are you doing this to me?”
His answer. “Because we can.”
I have a healthy distrust of government. I know many government employees who feel the same. It’s inherent in the system to accrue power.
And not give it back.
THIS, at the request of the postal service, to keep operating. Of course, they have been required to operate at a ‘profit’ since 1970, and have maintained their status as a losing proposition since that time.
In other words, in the RED!
“Why don’t we just get rid of them?” You ask.
Well, we’ve millions of retired postal employees with their cushy pensions and medical care they were promised to deal with.
AND, there’s that pesky Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads“.(Wikipedia)
Therefore, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Post Office.
First Class Postage (2004) 37 cents
First Class Postage (1994) 29 cents
First Class Postage (1984) 20 cents
First Class Postage (1963) 4 cents (Yep, LBJ started the sharp uphill battle.)
No wonder most people now use Email and UPS!
A public library in Detroit left to ruin, then destroyed – BOOKS AND ALL!
The only thing worse would be if they burned the books. Regardless, I’m certain Mark Twain and Ray Bradbury are crying, somewhere…
I’m guessing the under 50% of the literate in Detroit are reading The National Enquirer!
But…there IS hope!
Five Futures for Libraries! (Neatorama)
…ANYWHERE! To make a call, or…
It’s getting so a guy can’t make a private telephone call, anymore! ANYWHERE! OR…
I used to LIKE United States Intelligence. You remember, the guys on our side who struggled to get information from the guys on their side to keep us safe? J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Some Anonymous NSA Generals…
Except, they found out it was easier to spy on us to keep us “safe” than to spy on the other guys!
Of course, finding where Bin Laden was or info on the Arab terrorists who bombed us mostly didn’t require them spying on us. Or so we thought.
And then there’s always…
Wanna get off the grid? Right now?
Even if I’m just making a call.
h/t SMBC, Zerohedge, Engadget
A chemist for the state of Massachusetts, Annie Dookhan, pleaded guilty on Friday to falsifying tens of thousands of drug arrest investigations. WBUR has collected its stories on Dookhan into a website called Bad Chemistry, an investigation which they say calls into doubt 40,323 cases she was personally involved in and 190,000 cases the lab worked on. The lab is now closed.
Gee, ya think there will be legal repercussions here?
“The ripple effects of the potentially bogus testing are staggering for the criminal justice system and for the defendants. As authorities review the cases involved, they’re also considering cases where defendants received stiffer sentences because of previous offenses. Or cases where defendants risked or lost jobs, public housing, custody of their children, or deportation.
“District attorneys have set up ‘war rooms’ in their offices just so staffers can research and match the cases in which Dookhan tested the drug evidence. They’ve hired retired judges to preside over to review each case and decide whether to release those incarcerated and/or hold new trials.”
Research shows that the problem reaches far beyond a few states. According to a study published last year in Criminal Justice Ethics, the American system by and large perverts the incentives of the people working in it, such that everyone, from police, to prosecutors, and, apparently, even the lab scientists, are more motivated to get a guilty verdict rather than to ascertain real guilt or innocence.
This is a short ways from a story I’ve covered before: civil forfeiture, in which police legally steal money from people under the argument that anyone carrying that much cash must be involved with drugs. That’s not from a conviction by jury, but simply by seizing assets in a traffic stop or at an arrest. Nationally, several police departments and prosecutors’ offices brag about cars and boats they got this way. But it’s not just civil forfeiture on steroids and it’s not just Massachusetts; only eight states have laws that bar the use of forfeiture proceeds for the benefit of the seizing police department, and of the other 42 states, 16 give at least 50 percent of seized assets to law enforcement, and in 26 states, it is 100 percent. By creating a system which rewards its police for seizing property and that funds state crime labs by convictions, is it really such a wonder that someone like Annie Dookhan would do what she did to ensure that her lab got as many convictions as possible? (The Silicon Graybeard)
And how about all the civil litigation against The State resulting from this public malfeasance?
A close friend is always harping about the cronyism resulting from the privatization of prisons in our State. The essence being we need government to keep everything on the up-and-up.
One of the periodicals mentioned in the above article is Criminal Justice Ethics.
Doesn’t anyone take an oath and honor it, anymore?