Smart Guns are Here; But You May Not be Able to Buy One

I read an interesting article in the current edition of ‘Fortune Magazine,’ titled “Smart Guns – They’re Ready.  Are We?”  This article contains information that should be of interest to all, regardless of whether you love guns or hate them.

The article’s poster child (so-to-speak) is the Armatix iP1, .22 Caliber, (pictured) with a projected purchase price of $1800.  I won’t attempt to explain the RFID (radio frequency identification) technology.  But, basically, the gun’s owner wears a watch or bracelet, or some other similar device; and when the gun is farther then approximately one foot from the owner, and his device, it won’t fire.  The technology is battery operated.  However, the manufacture states the batteries will last for approximately one thousand shots and a red light will flash when the batteries grow weak.

This sounded like a good idea – at least for some.  However, personally, I wouldn’t want such a gun for several reasons, not the least of which is the high price.  I’ve had considerable training with guns and I’m very comfortable with them.  I’m old school.  ‘You load the gun.  You point the gun.  You squeeze the trigger and it goes bang.’  A quality gun and ammunition completes this cycle 100% of the time.  In the proper hands guns are very safe.

That said, the iP1 sounded like a valid alternative for some less trained individuals, who for various reasons might require a gun for protection.

When I was doing security consulting / private investigations, I would occasionally get requests for help from women being stalked.  They were scared, often with good cause.  There are several things that a woman, or sometimes a man, can do in these situations to protect themselves.  But, the bottom line, I would tell these folks, is that if you were depending on the police to protect you – good luck.  At best, the police would arrive too late to help you; but in time to conduct the crime scene investigation.

I would advise these women to get a gun, get some professional training with the gun, and do not aspire to be one more crime statistic.  Take charge of your own safety – your own life.  The unfortunate side of this advice was that these potential victims might actually acquire a gun, but didn’t think they needed any training.  Consequently, they were petrified to even handle the gun; and often hid it away where it wouldn’t be available if they should require it.  Some would later tell me that their greatest fear was the possibility that the stalker would take the gun and use it on them.

But I digress.  Apparently, the iP1 will not be commercially available anytime soon.  Why?  The concept is being opposed by two factions, the pro-guns’ faction and the anti-guns’ faction.  Seems strange doesn’t it?  I’ll explain.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Leonard Peltier Murdered FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald A. Williams (Part 3 - Conclusion)

When you read about those who are advocating for a Presidential pardon for Leonard Peltier, Robert Redford seems to be one of the principals pushing that action.  I’m always suspicious of celebrities.  What exactly is their real motive?

For example, Robert Redford is a very rich man; a pampered, insulated man.  If he was sincerely concerned about Leonard Peltier, one might ask why he doesn’t just open his wallet and hire the best attorney in town for Leonard.  But, you see, Redford isn’t going to do that.  He gets more play for his money advocating a cause.  It’s trendy – gives him something to talk about at cocktail parties I suppose; makes his life seem just a bit more meaningful, maybe even benefits his career in certain circles.

Furthermore, Redford knows that the attorney route wouldn’t work anyway.  Peltier has already appealed his case through various legal channels; and those appeals have all failed.  So, Mr. Redford will pursue the Presidential Pardon route.  He knows President Obama is probably receptive to the idea – the President being a celebrity junky in his own right.  And, hell, screw the FBI Agents.  They’ve been dead for forty years anyway – who really cares.

Some of the other celebrities like Willie Nelson and Pamela Anderson – well, does anyone really take anything they say seriously?

I guess my questions for Mr. Redford would be, ‘Will you really be happy when Leonard Peltier, a convicted murderer, walks?’  ‘Will you invite him to your home?’  ‘Introduce him to your family?’  ‘Really?’

As a young Agent who spent a couple of months at Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, during the 1973 dust-up, I do take this a little personally.  The thought does cross my mind that this could have been me.

True Nelson

Leonard Peltier Murdered FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald A. Williams (Part 2)

The casual reader, regarding the murders of FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald L. Williams (1975 – Pine Ridge Indian Reservation), might presume that Leonard Peltier, convicted for the Agents’ murders, has been unjustly convicted.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

But, you say, what about all of Peltier’s alleged supporters to include such luminaries as:  Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Willie Nelson, Pamela Anderson, Common (he was great in 'Hell on Wheels') et al.

Well, I did research this.  And, if you’d like to do your own research, make sure the Excedrin is close-by.  There seems to be a flood of information with little specificity.  The bottom line, as I see it, is that Peltier has become a cause célèbre to American Indians and those others who wish to be sympathetic to their plight (a plight that is allegedly ubiquitous; but difficult for most to define); often categorizing Peltier as a ‘political prisoner,’ whatever that means.

The name Mother Teresa caused me pause – a reportedly saintly person.  How could one doubt her sincerity or authenticity?  What about Desmond Tutu?  What about the European Parliament (Did you know there was such an organization)?  Yes, they weighed-in too.

Well, it gets a little sketchy – to say the least.  It appears that Mother Teresa may have opined at one point that Mr. Peltier wasn’t getting proper medical attention.  Others, mostly what we would normally consider ‘leftists,’ or perhaps ‘far leftists,' have contended the evidence against Peltier was not only flawed, but was actually fabricated by the FBI; and, as a result, Peltier did not get a fair trial.  But, there is nothing tangible; mostly smoke and vague generalities.

Understand that Peltier had five notable, highly qualified and experienced defense attorneys at his trial and has had subsequent various courts review that trial process – including the U.S. Supreme Court.  And, guess what?  They haven’t found a problem.

One aspect that keeps being repeated is that “prosecutors” have allegedly said that they are not certain that Peltier actually killed the Agents.  However, it does not seem to be refuted that he (Peltier) was actually there.  Somebody, shot the Agents at close range.  Peltier was there.  I hate to quote one of my least favorite politicians, but it seems appropriate here:  “What difference does it make?”

This is not funny.  It is deadly serious.  But, it kind of reminds me of a possible Three Stooges skit.  ‘You shoot them.’  ‘No, here’s the gun, you shoot them.’  ‘No, I don’t want to, you do it.’  ‘I’m not going to do it, you do it.’  All the while the wounded Agents wait on the ground for these, ah, 'socially challenged activists' to decide who the executioner will be.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Leonard Peltier Murdered FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald A Williams / Let’s Just Get it Straight

I really couldn’t let this one slide-by.

“Peltier’s Son Joins Fight for Father’s Freedom” (The Oregonian 5/10/15).  Article by Dana Tims.

Before I criticize, I always research the writer.  I want to make sure that he is not twenty-one and recently graduated from journalism school.  I wouldn’t want to rain on a young person’s parade.  However, Mr. Tims looks old enough to know better.

Leonard Peltier’s son, Chauncey, is apparently renewing the ‘fight’ to free his father, the murderous, unrepentant Leonard Peltier.  OK, sons often overlook the sins of their fathers, and even sometimes put a glossy spin on their fathers’ past escapades.  You know ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘it was just the times’ or ‘his actions were justified due to some murky wrong or cause.’  However, that doesn’t warrant Mr. Tims’ softball approach to writing about the murders of two FBI Agents (John L. Coler and Ronald A. Williams) on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota (1975).

Tims describes the murders as the result of a “shootout,” as if it was something like the ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’  Well, let’s get this straight.  The FBI Agents were outgunned, with their revolvers, and were ambushed by Peltier et al who were armed with rifles, located a considerable distance away.

The ‘shootout:’ Coler and Williams fired a grand total of five rounds.  However, the Agents’ car had a total of 125 bullet holes.  This did not, of course, account for the incoming rounds that missed the car or shattered windows in the car.  Agent Coler was hit in the arm which reportedly nearly severed it.  Williams, also wounded, attempted to stem the blood flow from Coler’s arm by wrapping his own shirt around the wound.

Coler, probably near death, and Williams wounded were approached by Peltier and friends.  The Agents were executed at close range, two bullets to Coler’s head, and one bullet to Williams’ head.  Williams had a defensive wound to his hand which he held in front of his face.  The bullet went through his hand into his head.

9-22-91, Peltier admitted, on the television program “60 Minutes,” that he shot at the Agents.

In an elaborate trial, with five defense attorneys, Peltier was convicted on two counts of ‘First Degree Murder.’  Substantial evidence was presented in court connecting him to the principal murder weapon, the .223 rifle.  Peltier has entered several appeals.  All have been denied by various courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court has on two occasions refused to hear his appeals.

Peltier now holds hope that he will be pardoned by President Obama.  Many experts consider this a realistic possibility.  Peltier, surprisingly in my opinion, has received the backing of several celebrities.  I will talk more about this.

To be continued…

True Nelson

A Mass Murder Simulated at a Public School / Halfway, Oregon

This is a story that would be funny if it wasn’t so incredibly serious.  It occurred in Halfway, Oregon in April of 2013.

Halfway is a small town in eastern Oregon, population approximately 300.  Said sleepy little town, situated halfway between Pine and Cornucopia in Baker County, occasionally breaks into the news.

For example did you know that a prominent Halfway resident is Babette March (born in 1941), now known as Babette Beatty.  If you’re a sports’ fan, an older one, you might recall that Babette was the first Sports Illustrated, swimsuit issue, cover model.  Look her up.  She was a real ‘hotty.’  And, I’m sure a lovely woman to this day.

Or you might recall that in 1999, Halfway, Oregon changed their town name to Half.Com.  The name change was reportedly, semi-official, but only lasted a year.  This was during the ‘dot com’ boom of the late ‘90s.  It did help the town garner a little publicity, and some free computers for the local school.

But, in April of 2013, the school board and a complicit Baker County Sheriff’s Office pulled-off a stunt that was beyond stupid.  And, as a result, Linda Mallery McLean, a former school teacher, is now suing the Pine Eagle School District #61.

What happened?  Well, the ‘authorities’ (and I use that term loosely) decided to simulate a mass murder, school shooting.  They conducted this operation on a day when the children were not in school, but the teachers had a workday.  Apparently, two men, armed with guns loaded with blanks and dressed in the perceived fashion of a typical mass murderer (although I’m not sure what a typical MM looks like in Halfway), burst into the school scaring the holy bejesus out of the unsuspecting teaching staff.

According to McLean, one the ‘terrorists’ stormed into her classroom, pointed a gun at her, pulled the trigger; and then informed the traumatized Ms. McLean, “You’re dead!”

Now, the school authorities didn’t do this half-assed, or maybe they did.  But they did inform the Sheriff’s Office ahead of time, just in case one of the teachers called 911.  Furthermore, the Sheriff’s Office did conduct background checks on the teaching staff to make sure none of them held a Concealed Weapon Permit – which they didn’t.  Too bad, because the resulting shoot-out could have brought a lot of publicity to Halfway; and moreover taught the local school board, and the Sheriff’s Office, the true meaning of the word ‘stupid.’

Some of the teachers were hurt during the ‘attack,’ running and attempting to fight back.  Since then, Ms. McLean, who had taught at the school for more than 30 years, was unable to return to work – Post Traumatic Stress is her claim.

Good luck, Ms. McLean.

True Nelson

Did the US Attorney, the FBI and The Oregonian newspaper play a role in the re-election of now disgraced Governor Kitzhaber?

I found a recent article in the Oregon City News (a local newspaper) very interesting; although, I must say, not particularly surprising:  “Richardson Speaks out About Political Scandal.”

Dennis Richardson, a former Republican State Legislator, ran an uphill and subsequently unsuccessful bid to unseat the incumbent Governor John Kitzhaber.  Most of you are aware that shortly after Kitzhaber’s re-election he was forced to resign; and he is currently under investigation by the US Attorney’s Office and the FBI.

Richardson had, prior to the election, submitted a detailed letter (October 26^th) to the US Attorney in Oregon setting forth very specific allegations against the Governor and his girlfriend, “fiancée,” Cylvia Hayes – citing unethical and possibly criminal conduct on the part of Kitzhaber and Hayes.

Richardson stated in the article:  “I hired a key Washington, DC, lawyer who had experience with federal investigations and prosecutions of elected officials to research and write the letter.”

Richardson said that he had no particular inside information, that the charges outlined were widely circulated in the media and through various public testimony.

Interestingly, the US Attorney Amanda Marshall (appointed by President Barrack Obama) and the FBI sat on the information until after the re-election of Kitzhaber.  Within a couple of weeks, the public clamor forced Kitzhaber to resign.  Immediately, the US Attorney and the FBI (to that point completely silent) jumped into the fray.  Furthermore, the charges ultimately set forth by the US Attorney’s Office closely resembled allegations included in Richardson’s October letter.

Yes, folks, everything is political – as we all know or I suppose should know.  Just as in this case delaying tactics, by the Feds, may very well have changed an election outcome and insured a Democratic hold the State.  Upon Kitzhaber’s resignation, Oregon’s Secretary of State (also a Democrat) ascended to the Governorship.

One other point, The Oregonian (Oregon’s principal daily newspaper), although certainly privy to all of the known information about Kitzhaber, nonetheless had their Editorial Board endorse Kitzhaber for re-election.  With the The Oregonian’s help, Kitzhaber won decisively.  Richardson was just SOL.

Was the fix in on this one?  I don’t know. The Oregonian’s editorial board has since apologized for their misdirected endorsement.  However, their apology sounds to me just a bit disingenuous.  Based on what they almost certainly knew, they could have just as well withheld any endorsement for Governor.  But they didn’t.  Ethics, for bigtime newspapers struggling to survive, has become a rather archaic concept.  No, I take that back.  Ethics is a concept that has rarely held sway in the newspaper business.  Those who believe otherwise – well, what can I say?

You might also be interested in reading this related post:
  http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-fbi-us-attorneys-office-kitzhaber.html

True Nelson

A Good Read / The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown

I don’t often recommend books I’ve read; but I have recently finished a very good one:  The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown.  This is a book that almost anyone will enjoy reading – even bring a tear or two to your eyes – at least it did to mine – very inspirational.  It will make a great movie.

This is a book about the ‘boys’ who made up the University of Washington’s ‘eight – oar crew’ that won the 1936 Olympic Gold in rowing; held in Germany (Nazi Germany).

The ‘boat’ has eight rowers and a coxswain for a crew total of nine.  The book, researched in detail, delves into all their lives, but principally chronicles the life of Joe Rantz and his hardscrabble, early life – literally abandoned and orphaned at the age of fifteen.

The gold medal in the 1936 Olympic, 2000 meter race, was won by these American college boys, who found their ‘swing’ and pulled together a come-from-behind upset victory.  Germany’s hand-selected team finished third behind the Italian Team.

“On the balcony of Haus West, Hitler turned and strode back into the building, unspeaking.  Goebbels and Goring and the rest of the Nazi officials scurried in behind him.”

The ‘boys’ winning, record time was 6 minutes 26.4 seconds.  This record was an incredibly fast time for the period.

Incidentally, and it should not detract in any way from the 1936 victory (training regimens and equipment have greatly improved over the years); but Canada now holds the record at 5 minutes 19.35 seconds, set in 2012.

True Nelson

The FBI, The US Attorney’s Office / Kitzhaber - Hayes / Game On!

I hate to say I told you so; but I told you so.  Hours after Governor John Kitzhaber announced his resignation, the FBI and their local surrogate the US Attorney’s Office (Portland) jumped into the official fray.  They were not about to be left out of this one.

Oh, I know, some had reported earlier that ‘unofficial sources’ had indicated the FBI’s interest; and, I’m sure that an Agent was busily clipping newspaper articles.  However, the FBI would not confirm their interest.

But, game on now.  The FBI and the Justice Department want their place on the stage.  'Stand aside Ellen Rosenblum, we will take it from here.'

What's next?  What will take place is a protracted, very expensive legal battle; much of which (most, if not all) will be funded by the taxpayers.

This is how the game is played.

http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2015/02/oregon-governor-john-kitzhaber-and.html

True Nelson

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber Resigns in Disgrace / and Who is at Fault?

Well, Governor Kitzhaber has resigned.  He probably did the right thing; but it’s hard to feel good about it.  His life, his career in tatters, it’s like watching a train wreck – fascinating, but you just want to turn away.

I think most now speculate that Cylvia Hayes caused Kitzhaber’s downfall.  It would be pretty easy to blame her and her ‘seductive’ ways; but that just doesn’t seem likely – no, really, it doesn’t – at least not to me.  He’s not stupid.  He’s not unsophisticated.  He is not politically ignorant.  And, he is not sixteen.  Although, at times, one could wonder about the latter.

I think there was complicity on his part, probably more than we will ever know.  He buckled too easily, too quickly.  Yes, there are things he hopes we will never know.

What about Kitzhaber’s relationship with Cylvia?  Oh boy, talk about a train wreck.

True Nelson

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber; and Where’s Waldo? (I mean the FBI)

Governor John Kitzhaber indicated he would resign on Tuesday; but changed his mind on Wednesday.  Pressure is increasing for him to get on with it and complete the former.  The public corruption matter is becoming more and more evident involving Kitzhaber and his girlfriend Cylvia Hayes, aka ‘The First Lady.’

But, moving on, do you know the answer to the following?

What is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s current policy / directives concerning ‘Public Corruption?’  Well, here’s what they have to say about that.

“It’s our top priority among criminal investigations—and for good reason.

Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year.

The FBI is singularly situated to combat this corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and surveillance.”

So why haven’t we heard anything from the FBI regarding the Kitzhaber / Hayes imbroglio?

Here are my suggested answers to the above:

1. The Portland FBI administration / supervisory staff have apparently assumed a non-aggressive position in public corruption cases; preferring, instead, to pursue less politically charged inquiries – a ‘let’s wait and see’ position whereupon they can jump in at the last – the fait accompli so to speak – and grab their share of the recognition (glory).  Any prosecution or forced resignation of a Governor would be a very important addition to their ‘stats’ and a feather in the cap of the SAC.
2. The Portland FBI does not act with total independence.  Anything they do, regarding such a high-profile inquiry, would require FBI HQ authorization.  Headquarters might have their own concerns.  This is not a typical case for the Bureau.  They may feel that ‘we risk nothing,’ by waiting.
3. And, of course, the FBI is part of the Justice Department; and must answer to Eric Holder, the President’s ‘aide-de-camp’ (sometimes referred to as the Attorney General).  Said individual, Mr. Holder, is probably not too anxious to go after a Democratic Governor and/or his girlfriend – especially in a State that is so consistently ‘Blue.’

True Nelson

You might also be interested in:

http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2015/02/governor-john-kitzhaber-and-cylvia.html

http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2014/10/oregon-governor-john-kitzhaber-co.html

Governor John Kitzhaber and Cylvia Hayes / The Plot Thickens

Governor John Kitzhaber and his girlfriend (Cylvia Hayes), aka ‘The First Lady,’ are making the news again.  I’m not going to run through the details.  If interested, I suggest people read Nick Budnick’s article in The Oregonian on 2/4/15.  And, or read David Sarasohn’s article, also in The Oregonian on 2/4/15.  I imagine one can find both online at OregonLive if you missed the newspaper.

Kitzhaber, Hayes, et al:  It sounds like double-dealing and cronyism of the worst kind – and dare I say possible criminality.  But don’t expect an official inquiry anytime soon.  Our Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum was appointed by Kitzhaber and is beholden to him for her current position.  And, as an aside, isn’t it interesting how she got her job?  Did her father pull some strings?

Well, what about the FBI?  Doesn’t appear to be anything happening there, as Gregory Bretzing (Special Agent in Charge – Portland) seems to be sitting on his hands waiting for the Oregonian to complete their investigation.

I got a kick out of the recent commentary by Steve Duin with The Oregonian.  He, too, pretty much laid-out Kitzhaber’s predicament.  However, at the end of his article, I had to disagree with his conclusion.  Mr. Duin opined that if the Governor had to choose between his job and ‘The First Lady,’ he (the Governor) would choose Cylvia.  Sounds romantic doesn’t it?  But, I doubt that’s how it would play.  I think that, if Kitzhaber resigns, Cylvia will move on to what she perceives to be greener pastures.

Once, I recall my grandfather commenting on a ‘good-looking’ woman who was appearing on television.  It surprised me.  I didn’t think that sort of thing ever crossed his mind.  My grandmother heard the comment.  She looked over at me and smiled.  I remember what she said.  “There’s no fool like an old fool.”

True Nelson

PS:  You might also be interested in:  http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2014/10/oregon-governor-john-kitzhaber-co.html

The British Perspective on Guns / and Why / Part 3

This is Part 3.  I appreciate John’s British perspective.  I found it very informative.  He has recently answered the two questions I put forth in Part 2; which I will now share with all of you.

True’s Question #1:

John, do you think that Americans (reflective of our culture and demographics) are more violent than the British; and, if so, why?

John’s Response:  In terms of assaults against the person there have been studies which show that the UK has a higher statistical rate than the US. Both societies are much the same in terms of the culture of violent TV shows and video games, the fracturing of the traditional family unit, and the assimilation of immigrants from totally differing cultures.  But the UK also has a lower legal drinking age (18) than the US.  The mixture of alcoholic brews and testosterone is a recipe for disorderly behavior at the least, DUII's and violent assaults further up the scale. The main weapon of the UK inner city thug is the knife, as firearms are far harder to obtain.  The bladed weapon is certainly capable of causing death but it is not the efficient killer that the gun is.  One study showed that assaults in the UK involving firearms are 1 in 13, far lower than the US.

Even the most meek and out-of-shape among us is transformed into a lethal force when a gun is in the hand.  So in terms of violence in the US resulting in fatalities the rate is much higher than the UK, simply because the easier to use and more deadly the weapon the higher will be the body count.  And although the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, it is not the highest in firearms related deaths.  That dubious distinction is shared by certain Central American and Caribbean countries.  Even so, watching the local TV evening news, I am struck by the notion that the rate of gang-related shootings rivals that of Belfast and Londonderry during the height of the Troubles; minus, of course, the mass casualty bombings.

True's Question #2:

John, do you think our Second Amendment is a good and necessary aspect of our Constitution?

John’s Response:  The Second Amendment.  Absolutely I believe it is good and necessary; although I' m sure the Founding Fathers would scratch their wigs at the dazzling array of battlefield weaponry which is available to the public.

Speaking solely with the perspective of my British background, and as a former unarmed cop, I believe such high capacity military type weapons should be restricted to gun club members and housed on those premises.  But that's me, who is still amazed that when I buy a gun I do not have to provide a reason for doing so to the authorities.  One aspect of gun ownership that I am in favor of is that there should be legal consequences for those gun owners who fail, through negligence or carelessness, to keep their weapons secure and are used by others to kill and maim the innocent. Being a lawful gun owner confers (or should) a tremendous personal responsibility to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands.

But getting back to the issue, the civilian right to bear arms was essential to safeguard the new republic from its enemies.  The gun was also a critical tool of survival for the pioneers and adventurers who pushed ever deeper into the unknown and often hostile lands, much the same as their opposite numbers in Australia and Canada.  In today's world, the threat is no longer from the Redcoats, the Spanish or the Apaches, but the armed criminals who prey off society and from whom the law abiding citizen is fully entitled to protect themselves. The Second Amendment is perhaps even more relevant in these times.

True’s Postscript:  As a past member of the NRA, I do feel that organization has gone too far in its unwavering defense of weapons that have no hunting, sporting, or reasonable personal protection function.  Although, I do understand that ‘reasonable personal protection’ is like beauty – in the eyes of the beholder.  Nonetheless, I’m referring to strictly anti-personnel weaponry of the worst kind:  such things as ‘Street Sweeper’ shotguns and military grade weapons with high capacity magazines.  Yes, I know, some collectors like to have them – but for what purpose, I’m really not sure.  However, if a person does have such a weapon and allows it to be misused or unsecured, the punishment should be severe.

I’ve often thought that guns should be rated, under law, according to their potential anti-personnel lethalness.  For example:  revolvers, traditional shotguns with three round capacity, and single-shot or bolt action rifles would be a ‘category one.’  On the other end, a ‘Street Sweeper shotgun (depicted above) or a Kalashnikov AK47 (depicted below) should be a ‘category five.’  Law violations and subsequent penalties should consider the weapon’s assigned category.  In my opinion, using a ‘category five’ weapon in commission of a crime should warrant ‘life’ in prison.

True Nelson

The British Perspective on Guns / and Why / Part 2

This is a continuation of John’s comments regarding British law enforcement and the UK's anti-gun culture:

John:  "During my years as a UK police officer I never carried a gun.  No one I arrested, or my colleagues arrested, was in possession of a gun.  Not to say it did not occur, but it was a rarity.

Possession of a firearm or an imitation firearm could result in a lengthy incarceration.  The prevailing sentiment of the day among the police was that if we were armed then the crooks would pack guns and we would not be safer.  There was, among some, the old cry of 'we don’t want to be like America.'   They could have easily said we don’t want to be like France, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Australia, etc.  All those forces are armed.  The few other nations which are primarily unarmed are the Irish Republic, New Zealand, and Norway.

A murder investigation in the UK was a big deal with Incident Rooms established, officers drafted in from other divisions, all under the command of an officer not below the rank of a Detective Chief Inspector.

When I was growing up the most popular police show on TV was Dixon of Dock Green which ran for years.  The main character was a middle-aged police sergeant who resolved cases and restored order through mainly avuncular wisdom.  Rarely was there a laying on of hands on an offender and certainly no firearms were brandished.  And today the public is not ready for the friendly area constable, on his foot beat in the High Street, chatting up merchants, seeing school kids across the street, giving directions to tourists, with a gun strapped to his hip.  In a recent incident in Scotland, an armed response group, being the only officers available, responded to a routine disturbance call outside a McDonalds.  They turned up with their Glocks and magazines clearly visible much to the consternation of the stunned onlookers, which was followed by howls of concern by a local member of parliament to the Chief Constable.

That said the public is now conditioned to the sight of London Metropolitan Officers, armed with H & K automatic rifles and handguns, patrolling in pairs, through Heathrow airport.

Times are changing.  In my day the terrorist threat was from the IRA, but the shadowy bombers were already long gone when their devices exploded.   None of them were suicide bombers unless they had screwed up their timing mechanisms.  Recent events in France and Belgium involving Islamic terrorists show a kamikaze mentality who will confront their targets with guns blazing.  Death to them is the martyrdom of the fanatic.

In the recent Belgian incident the police foiled attacks in which they themselves were the intended target.  Automatic weapons and police uniforms were discovered.  But at least, unlike their unarmed British colleagues, the European officers have the means to defend themselves."

True’s Comment (questions for John):

1. John, do you think that Americans (reflective of our culture and demographics) are more violent than the British; and, if so, why?
2. Do you think our Second Amendment is a good and necessary aspect of our Constitution?

True Nelson

The British Perspective on Guns / and Why

I have a good friend, a British chap (formerly British), who, interestingly, was in law enforcement in the United Kingdom.  He has recently become a US citizen; and we’re lucky to have him – a very nice guy.  His name is John; and we’ve had many discussions over the years about law enforcement, crime and the psychology of perpetrators.

John and I have a mutual interest in guns; their functionality as well as their craftsmanship.  John has quite a few opinions on that subject.  And, as a result, he and I have occasionally discussed gun history and gun philosophy as it pertains to the British.  The following is what I recently received from him.  I’m going to relate his comments in two or three posts, because they are rather lengthy.  I hope you will find the comments as interesting as I did.

John:         “To viewers who watch British Police shows on PBS, such as New Tricks, Midsomer Murders, DCI Banks, the most noticeable difference between the UK officers and their US counterparts is the absence of firearms.  It was not always so.

In the Sherlock Holmes movies and TV series, the great detective, essentially a de facto officer who solved cases where Scotland Yard had blundered, would instruct his sidekick, Dr. Watson, to bring along his trusty Webley service revolver as the pair sallied forth to combat the forces of evil.

The London Metropolitan police was first established in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel, a Baronet who served terms as Prime Minister.  He had previously, as Chief Secretary in Dublin, established the Royal Irish Constabulary, in 1814.  His philosophy dictated that the police operated solely by the consent of the civilian population and would not be seen as an armed force of the State. Their uniforms were designed to be distinctly different from that of the red-coated soldiers of the day.  Their only weapon was a wooden truncheon. They became known to the public, somewhat affectionally, as 'Bobbies' after their founder.  In Ireland, they were known somewhat less affectionally as 'Peelers.'  By 1857 all UK cities were required to form their own police forces.  Although Sir Robert is lauded for the establishment of the UK modern police force, not everyone was a fan.  Queen Victoria described him as a 'cold, unfeeling disagreeable man.'  In particular, he did not endear himself to Her Majesty when, as Prime Minister, he opposed the awarding of a yearly sum of 50,000 pounds to her husband, Prince Albert.  Sir Robert died at the age of 62 following a fall from his horse.

Civilian possession of handguns in Britain, with the appropriate certificate, was lawful up until the Dunblane school shooting in Scotland in 1996 when an ex-scout master took two Browning 9mm pistols and two Smith & Wesson 357 revolvers into a school and killed 16 children and a teacher before killing himself.  His fire arms possession were under the category of a collector. Within a matter of days, close to half a million people in Scotland alone signed a petition calling for the total ban on civilian possession of handguns.  An official enquiry by Lord Cullen under the Conservative government of the day recommended tighter restrictions on handgun possession but considered a complete ban 'inappropriate.'  Shooting clubs would be exempt and civilian possession of 22 calibre single shot handguns would be allowed.  However, when the Blair Labour party came to power shortly after they instituted a total ban on all handgun possession.  This did not provoke the outcry that even such an attempt would have done so in the US.  Possession of firearms is not considered a right, but a privilege which the State will strictly regulate. The shooting community is a minority with little to no political clout.  Hunting has been mainly limited to the land-owning gentry.  There are not the wide-open vast public lands that exist in the US and Canada. As an aside, long barreled weapons can be obtained by police certificate and come threaded for a suppressor.

The handgun ban does not apply to Northern Ireland where the long years of sectarian strife present their own unique threats. A resident of that province can legally possess a handgun for personal protection - if the police approve, on a case-by-case basis.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary, renamed with the more pc title of the Northern Ireland Police Service, is the one UK force responsible for policing cities and towns which is permanently armed.  Two others, which are armed but with limited jurisdiction are the Ministry of Defence police (MOD) and the Civilian Nuclear Constabulary.  They have law enforcement powers at nuclear plant sites and within 5 kilometres of those sites.  The MOD serve as an armed security and investigative service for MOD property and personnel.  They are also assigned to overseas territories for certain policing duties.  One somewhat odd example being in 2003/2004, an investigation into communal sex abuse of children on the remote Pitcairn Island where Fletcher Christian and his fellow mutineers of The Bounty, as depicted in three Hollywood movies, eventually ended up on in 1789.  Both the MOD and the Nuclear force can be assigned to assist regular forces upon a request from the Chief Constables of those forces.

In a shooting rampage in Cumbria, the Lake District, in 2010, the nearby Sellafield Nuclear site was closed and the on-site officers called in to assist the local force in tracking down the shooter.  The first responding Cumbria officers were unarmed as no armed force response group was immediately available. The shooter, armed with a double barreled shotgun and a CZ bolt action 22 rifle, killed 12 people   He had firearms certificates for both weapons.  Following the shootings, renewed calls were made for further restrictions on firearm possession, but Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain already had some of the most stringent requirements in the world and further restrictions would not be adopted.”

To be continued…

True Nelson

Martin Luther King Day - a National Holiday / Why?

I shouldn’t write this.  Some things we are just supposed to keep to ourselves.  We can think them, but best not express them.  That said, I’m not a racist.  But…  Didn't Eric Holder (US Attorney General) say that we should have a national dialogue on 'race' - and that we (the public) are cowards who are not willing to discuss the issues? 

Yes, OK Eric, well here goes. 

Today is Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday – or close to it – he was actually born on the 15^th; but Americans like their three day holidays.

However, have you noticed that every news program has to have their obligatory tribute to Dr. King?  All of them!  No one, in the entire history of this country, has apparently (at least they would like us to believe) played a more meaningful, courageous roll than Dr. King.  He has become unique in his historical significance.  Americans simply can’t praise him enough.

I looked over my calendar.  Do you realize that Dr. King is the only individual that has a national holiday dedicated to him?  Well, unless you count Saint Patrick’s Day (whoever that was, but the Irish seem to enjoy the day), Columbus Day (this is a stretch), Valentine’s Day (I guess he was a saint also); and Christmas (not generally acknowledged or understood to be Jesus Christ’s birthday; although, I might add, I believe he played a significant role in history also).

Some might say that Dr. King was special in the sense that he fought for African-American civil-rights and against outrageous discrimination.  OK, I agree he was basically a good man and did some good things; and, I suppose, the rest of us have some serious, moral compensation due Blacks for slavery and the subsequent discrimination – even though, much of that, most of us had absolutely nothing to do with.

Regarding slavery (yes, I know, horrible to even contemplate), I do recall that thousands of White men and boys died to free the slaves.  That should mean something, shouldn’t it?  What about the Emancipation Proclamation?  What about Abraham Lincoln?  When is his birthday celebrated?  Oh, I realize, he gets to be included in Presidents’ Day.  But, that’s not quite the same as having your own day, is it?

I also know that Dr. King was assassinated because of his politics.  But, so was Lincoln – who I happen to believe did far more for African-Americans – just me.  We used to celebrate Lincoln’s birthday.  Sounds kind of old-fashioned now, doesn’t it?

However, how about some sort of compromise?  I propose a national holiday called Lincoln - King Day.

I think Dr. King would be happy and proud to share a special day with Mr. Lincoln.  

What do you think Eric?

Oh, Eric, one other thing.  I said above that I'm not a 'racist,'; but why do I have this feeling that you are?

True Nelson

Paris Massacre / Charlie Hebdo Newspaper / Who are the heroes?

I feel compelled to comment on the recent massacre in Paris.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to defend ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘freedom of expression,’ which are, in my opinion, largely clichés; and freely thrown around, misused, by the news media (vested interest) and the uninformed.

Charlie Hebdo is a French, for profit, ‘satirical’ weekly newspaper.  The cartoons and articles criticize and lampoon everyone who is anyone of societal importance, including religious leaders; and one of their favorite targets is Mohammed and Muslims.  I looked at some of their cartoons.  Poor taste would be a considerable understatement.  And, one can easily understand why those who worship Mohammed would be offended.  This does not, in anyway, justify the barbaric attack and the murder of the magazine’s employees.  I would, however, imagine that much of what was displayed in Charlie Hebdo would not be condoned or allowed in the United States – at least I hope not.

Why did I first say that ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘freedom of expression’ does not really exist?  And, quite frankly, it shouldn’t.  Some Americans might have found the cartoons depicting Mohammed funny or innocuous, but I don’t.  What if we had a magazine that made obscene, demeaning fun of Jews or African Americans?  Wouldn’t most of us object?  I would.

Unfortunately, for most Americans, demeaning Christianity is basically OK.  As I’ve said before, I am agnostic, but I still find some of the awful acts debasing the Christian religion offensive.

 “Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

This is art?  This is freedom of expression?  This is crap!  The ‘artist’ is an idiot.

However, getting back to my original point, I don’t think Charlie Hebdo publishers and writers, now deceased, should be considered heroes.  Sorry, I just don’t.

I do think that Ahmed Merabet, the French Police Officer who died trying to protect the employees of Charlie Hebdo is a hero.  He and the other two officers killed that day should be celebrated as the true heroes.

#JenesuispasCharlie ‘I am not Charlie’

#JesuisAhmed ‘I am Ahmed’

True Nelson

Should Cops wear Body Cameras? I am skeptical.

Our President has requested $264 million to fund police body cameras for street cops – our ‘thin blue line.’  I have my doubts that this is such a good idea.  It is a questionable use of tax payers’ money, and is premised on what is basically, in my opinion, a knee-jerk decision.

Yes, of course, the President’s action is because of the high-profile Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases involving police shootings.  First off, the Eric Garner arrest, which led to Garner's unfortunate death, was filmed.  Secondly, there seems to have been adequate witness testimony in the Michael Brown case – and it is doubtful that a filmed version would have changed anyone’s opinion as to what actually occurred.

Some will say ‘What’s the down side?’  ‘What can it hurt?’  I’m not really sure; but, to me, there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions.

I don’t know exactly what is intended.  However, in Oregon, you can’t record sound (like a conversation) unless both parties are aware that they are being recorded.  That’s easy, some will argue, Officers can advise all those they contact that they are being recorded.  Think about it.  A police officer might have dozens of contacts during a typical shift.

Secondly, can the officer turn the camera on and off?  Defense Attorneys will love this.  ‘And, Officer Smith, why wasn’t your camera on in the two minutes before you exited the car to approach the defendant?’

Will rough talk by police officers be gleaned from past recorded videos?  And, subsequently used against them in court to attack their credibility, their professionalism?  Or, attempt to determine a pattern of conduct?  Do not police officers have some expectation of privacy during the course of their shift?  They are not robots.  They are human beings doing a difficult job, under often dangerous situations.

And, consider this:  There is a shooting in a neighborhood.  The officers go door-to-door attempting to quickly get a suspect description.  If you were a neighbor and happened to know that the shooter was a local gang-banger will you cooperate with police, realizing that you’re being filmed and your conversation recorded?  I’m not sure I would.  The casually informed public should understand, at least I hope they do, that police often get tips from individuals that are valid and lead to arrests – although the potential witness will deny cooperation later.  Again, one might respond, ‘Well, the detectives don’t need to wear cameras.’  Alright, but much good information is obtained by the first officers on the scene.

I guess my main point is, ‘What person wants to wear a camera recording their every move during an eight or ten hour shift?’

Why don’t fire-fighters, prison guards, parole and probation, and all security personnel wear cameras?  What about surgeons, child welfare employees, or teachers?  They get sued from time to time.  They also commit crimes.  Shouldn’t we know how they are conducting themselves?  Where does it stop?

I do think that cameras on police patrol vehicles is a good idea.  I do think that is more than adequate.

There has to be an element of trust, an element of respect, extended to those in law enforcement.  If not, who but a complete knucklehead would even want to take the job?

True Nelson