An open letter to Governor Gavin Nuisance

 Look, I've had a lot going on.  I never promised regular updates, right?  But I needed to write the governor, and I thought it would not be amiss to let everyone know what I was writing about.  Redacted for privacy (those of you who need to know what's going on already know what's going on.)

-----    SNIP HERE     -----

Governor Newsom -

  I know I'm a bit behind on this, but I've been busy caring for my wife (who, coincidentally, has COVID.  She has been in hospital since the **th.)  However, I note with some dismay - although I'm not at all surprised - your dicta on the California vaccine passport/database/whatever you choose to call it - but, in the final analysis, it's a passport.  And, it's being dangled as a restriction on freedoms, "encouraging" us to get the COVID jabs.

  My wife and I refused the jabs.  I freely admit, we both got COVID - I did not require hospitalization, but I'm only 49, and got over it in three days.  I thought it was a bad summer cold.  However, she's 66 and asthmatic, so it has hit her rather harder.  I shan't go into her condition, I suspect I don't have the space.

  Were you aware that it is a violation of national and international law to force people to partake in a medical experiment, or to cause them to do so without their knowledge?  Did you know that removing the freedoms of people to move about and freely associate constitutes at least a partial deprivation of rights, which constitutes duress, which constitutes force?  Did you know that the earliest any of the COVID jabs will get out of study is late 2022?  That means they're still experimental.  Think about that.

  Relevant law was passed shortly after World War II, so that no-one could again do what the Nazis did upon the Jews - vivisection, stress experiments on twins, and the like.

  You can find relevant law in the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, and our own 50USC1520a.

  You may have also noticed that many states (including my home state of Indiana - I'm a transplant) have outright barred the idea of "vaccine passports," either by executive or legislative action.  I'd half hoped that California, styling itself being made up of "rugged individualists," would have done the same.  Alas, California has continued their 30-year record of disappointing me. 

  I suggest you read the laws I cited above and reconsider your position.  I did not take the jab, neither did my wife.  We both got COVID.  Several people I know have had COVID, to varying degrees.  Most of us will continue to refuse to take the jab - our own natural immunity is superior to anything that would come out of a needle, and I've just asked my doctor if I could get a test added to an order to confirm the presence of Immunoglobulin A (IgA) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) for COVID - if they are, indeed, present, I will consider that my "proof of immunization" and carry it accordingly - but you're going to have to be pretty damned convincing to get me to show it to you.  After all, you may have the right to ask the question, but you are in no way entitled to an answer.  HIPPA may not apply, but we've got this little thing called Amendment IV that allows us to be private in our "persons, papers, and effects" - and medical questions are definitely about "persons."  I have already told you FAR more of my medical history than you are at all entitled to.

  I look forward to either your reversal of your action of 18JUN, or your personal reply for further discussion.  You have my email, above.

Jon D. Kelley

***********

I know, I've been away for a while. Survival is a selfish business, and I've been doing a lot of that...

  I never promised regular updates.

 Anyhow.  I've been doing a bit of thinking over the last month or two about the election on 03NOV and all the aspects of it (including Biden's "Office of the President-Elect" bullshit.  Seriously, what the fuck is that all about?  There is no "Office of the President-Elect"!) the "unity" and "healing" rhetoric coming from the Democrats now (as opposed to the constant stream of demonization and castigation of the last four years or so, and even the calls on Twitter for "deprogramming," "concentration camps," and a "return of the firing squad" for people who don't think like Democrats.  And no, those tweets didn't get taken down, they can probably still be found.  If I looked, I could probably give you the news item I saw them in as well.

  Oh - and now the Left wants to "cleanse" Donald Trump from society.  

  I don't suppose any of this rhetoric sounds at all familiar to anyone?  Soviet Russia?  ChiComs?  Vietnam?  1984 (sales of which have spiked over the last couple of months?)  Animal Farm?  Even elements of Brave New World, if I recall correctly.  "Cleansing" society is rhetoric of dictators, despots, and stars; "deprogramming" is done to the "politically unreliable;" "concentration camps" are reserved to the "hard cases" that won't "deprogram," or just a class of enemy being used to motivate the people (like the Jews in Nazi Germany,) and I need not explain the use of the firing squad, do I?  This is what the political Right has to contend with, this is what we potentially face, this is what we have a very real possibility of having arrayed against us now.

  But now that the Democrats have the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office - we're just supposed to move forward in "unity," to "heal and move onward," and act like the last four years didn't happen.  They want to "deprogram" us.  They want to put us in "concentration camps."  They'd probably bring back the stocks or the pillory if they thought of it, just to humiliate us.

  How can we trust those people ever again?  They have shown their true colours - both the Democrats and the "Never-Trumpers" who voted for Biden, and therefore supported the idea as well.  I have people I've known well - we're talking 20-30 years here - who are Biden voters (for whatever reason,) and I can't bring myself to trust them fully anymore.  These are people I'd have trusted my life to before - now, given what they've supported, I can't do it anymore.  The basis for trust is no longer there.

  This election has shown everyone who everyone really is.  Some people are fine with much of what they see - the Democrats are happy with being surrounded by their Democrat echo chamber, the Republicans likewise, and we Constitutionalist conservatives have managed to find each other.  The NeverTrumpers?  Not quite sure where they fit in, hopefully they manage to find each other and they can commiserate on why they're Republicans who could not vote for a Republican.  I don't know, and I have a hard time trying to care, to be honest.

  Meanwhile, I have some ideas for election reforms:

• Anything Dominion, related to Dominion, derived from Dominion, or whatever - gone!  Likewise whatever software they were running, I don't recall the name of it at the moment.
• Poll observers are not to be ejected except for egregious conduct, like assault, battery, and the like.  They challenged a ballot?  That's what they're there for.  Meet the challenge - prove it wrong, or make it right.
• That said, a poll watcher ID shall be considered a pass to where they're counting the ballots, and whoever is securing the room needs to move out of the way.  That's General Order One
• General Order Two - At all times, there will be at least four security personnel monitoring the goings-on inside the room.  This is as much for general security as to prevent false accusations of "egregious conduct."
• If one side "cures" a ballot that isn't done in full view of the other, that ballot gets shredded and a new one generated - under both sets of eyes.
• All observers shall be afforded a clear, unobstructed view of the goings-on at all times.  No-one is to be kept at any sort of distance, other than that strictly necessary to maintain orderly operations (don't be in the poll worker's pockets - stand back a couple of feet.  But no putting one party behind a rope on one end of the room, that dog won't hunt.)  General Order Three - If one party tries to set up such a barrier, Security will remove it and allow the other party to take their proper places.
• Any suspect ballots, late arrivals, &c, are to be kept in lockboxes in a separate area (even a locked closet off the main room will serve.)
• General Order Four - There will be security personnel present as soon as the counting room is opened for setup, and they will remain there continuously until the counting is finished.  No "table skirts" or other concealing devices are to be used in the room setup.
• General Order Five - Ballots incoming will have the chain of custody examined and then signed by Security personnel before being given to the poll workers.  (It's as close to a disinterested third party as one can find in this situation - they're not counting, they're not observing for one side or the other.)
• Any Security personnel found to be in violation of any General Order shall find himself subject to disciplinary actions, which may include suspension and/or fine.  Half of the fine is to be paid to the worker/observer whose work was interrupted, the other half to their party or organization.

  Well, that's what I've got at the moment.  Any more ideas?  I'm all ears!

Discuss.

More on "Red Flag" Laws...

I note that, in my last entry, I did not elabourate upon what I thought would constitute an "ideal" "Red Flag Law."  Please allow me to now correct that oversight.  Here - in no particular order - are the points I think an "ideal" "Red Flag Law" should cover and/or entail:

(Nota Bene: "Petitioner" is the party seeking the order, "Respondent" is the party against whom the Order is sought.)

- No anonymous reporting.  You will be able to face your accuser in open court, just like in any other criminal matter (if you stand to lose property and/or rights, it's a criminal matter.)  Failure of the Petitioner to show up in court constitutes immediate dismissal of the Order with prejudice.  Failure of Respondent to appear in Court shall result in the granting of the Order for a period of six months.

- Summons for such hearings are to be delivered personally by police or deputy Sheriffs by hand to Petitioner and respondent.  A signed receipt is to be obtained.  This is to stave off complaints of "I never got notice!"  "Substitute Service" is disallowed - service may only be upon named parties.

- The "default" position on this shall be "No ORder Granted/Continued."  A position to maintain the order must be articulated in order to grant or continue the order.  Failure to do so results in dissolution of the order.

- Storage of any property seized under such an order shall be under proper conditions as to prevent deterioration and the owners shall not be charged storage fees.  Failure to return property in the condition as it was when it was seized shall require the immediate replacement of such property or restitution of the value of collector items which may not be replaced.  "Sentimental value" for heirloom firearms shall be considered when calculating restitution.

- No property is to be seizeduntil an order is granted.

- No order is to be granted until a hearing is held.

- The judge shall be accompanied on the bench by a clinical psychologist (doctoral-level) or psychiatrist, whose opinion shall be consulted, heard, and considered toward issuance or dismissal of such Orders.

- A credible fear must be articulated and assessed against Petitioner by Respondent in order for an Order to be put in place.

- Any "frivolous" accusations in an attempt to obtain Orders are to be penalized by the payment of all court costs by the Petitioner, a fine from the Petitioner to the Court, and a fine from the Petitioner to the respondent.  Such fines are not to be lower than one thousand dollars ($1,000) each, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each.  In the event of a conflict in payment, the Respondent shall be paid his fine first, then the Court costs, then the Court's fine.

- If an Order is granted, part and parcel of that order shall be an immediate psychological evaluation to determine if Respondent presents an immediate or imminent danger to himself or others.  This may or may not require a 96-hour hold, at the Court's discretion.  Nota Bene: Respondent's workplace may not discriminate or retaliate against Respondent as a result of a 96-hour hold, if such is deemed to be necessary.  such evaluation may also be conducted on an outpatient basis, and may be scheduled around the Respondent's work schedule in such cases.  If the Respondent is found to present no risk to himself or others, the Order is to be lifted and considered frivolous, and handled as in the previous point.

- Any Order granted under such measure shall be in force for not more than 365 days, at which time it is either renewed or dismissed.  The original Petitioner must return to court, with respondent, and articulate a continuing credible fear in order to continue the order.  Failure of Petitioner to appear in court will see the Order dismissed with prejudice in absentia.  Failure of Respondent to appear in court shall constitute automatic renewal of Order in absentia.

- Orders granted under this measure shall be in force for not less than 90 days.

- When any such order previously granted is lifted, any property previously seized has not more than one week to be returned in the condition as seized.

- Any property seized shall be photographed for record, with a copy of the photographs saved with the case file, a copy of the photographs saved with the property seized, and a copy of the photographs given to Respondent for his records.  Such photographs are to be consulted when property is returned to assess its condition.  Such photographs shall include "boresight" imagery of the barrel bore and chamber, and images of the open fire control mechanism (where such may be readily accessed.)  All photographs shall be stored for record on fixed digital media - CD-roM for maximum compatibility.  Multiple discs may be used, if required.  Images to be stored in uncompressed format as individual files.  Original data card to be set as "read-only" physically and in software and retained in the file along with the digital media copy.  Files may be renamed (on original card, prior to making optical media) to reflect the firearm they pertain to - listing by serial number should be sufficient.

- Upon return of property, Respondent is allowed one day per five firearms (or fraction thereof) returned to make a claim for damages in storage.  This is to allow time for detailed inspection of returned property.
- Any ammunition seized is to be returned (in serviceable condition) or replaced anew.

- Any NFA items shall have particular care taken.  Any pre-1986 NFA firearm that has a post-1986 replacement, if damaged beyond utility, is to have a new replacement issued and a new entry for it entered into the NFRTR.

That's what I can think of at the moment.  Discuss.

JDK

- CCW is to be suspended while such Orders are in effect.  Upon expiration or termination of such Orders, CCW shall be reinstated with balance of original term allowed.  CCW may be renewed as per normal.

GVROs and UBCs...

Things have been hectic lately - but I never did promise regular updates, did I?

GVRO = Gun Violence Restraining Order, a/k/a Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO,) or, colloquially, "Red Flag Law."

UBC = Universal Background Checks.  Also going under "Enhanced Background Checks."

I shall deal with the latter point first.

Of course, it's the left pushing for UBCs so hard - there are currently two House bills pushing this (H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112.)  H.R. 8 Forces all firearm transactions to go through an FFL, with all such transfers occurring as if the FFL had sold the firearm through inventory (id est, the sale is also logged and tracked.)  H.R. 1112 looks as if it redefines "mental illness" (expands it somewhat,) and there are mention of 3-, 10-, 25-, and 30-day periods I haven't managed to decipher yet (I hate reading laws.  Why can't they write them clearly and logically?)

In any case, the key fact here is that the sale is recorded - therefore, it's backdoor registration of firearms (assuming one were to always comply with the law as passed, if/when passed.  I foresee a good deal of civil disobedience, myself.)  Understandably, this has firearm owners upset - we don't like being registered, and filed, and all that rot.  As said in the intro to The Prisoner - "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!"

How would I have done UBC?
- NICS is now open to citizens to use, with applications for Android, *nix, Windoze, and iOS.
- No firearm information is entered into NICS.
- NICS searches are triggered by taking a picture or a scan of the individual's ID and a picture of his face (NICS compares the two.)  No firearm information is entered.
- NICS replies with an upcheck or a downcheck, and a confirmation number.  Either way, the number gets recorded by the (potential/erstwhile) seller.
- If the sale goes through, the seller writes out a receipt for the buyer (describing the firearm and recording the NICS check number) and keeps a copy for his own records.
- NICS records the fact that there was a check, and that the check was a PASS or a FAIL.  In order to prevent confusion, two different formats are used for the "PASS" and "FAIL" numbers.  Again, no firearm information is recorded in NICS.  Upon the death of the seller, his sale records are to be treated as the "bound book" kept by FFLs - they get sent in to F Troop (so they can screw up their records.)

I think that's fair.  Now, on to "Red Flag" Laws...

I think the biggest problem that I have with this idea is the fact that the order is granted in an ex parte hearing (you have no idea that the hearing is happening until the cops come around to serve the order on you, and they can do it at any time of the day, and it can be a "no-knock" order,) you are "guilty until proven innocent," you do not get the opportunity to face your accuser (so you can pull their case apart,) and no medical or psychological professional need be involved (which is interesting - because wouldn't you need a psychological diagnosis to determine that someone is a danger to himself or others?)

Oh - and the way these laws are being written, just about anybody can dob you in.  Cops, co-workers, that blind date you didn't get along with very well last night, your kids' teachers, &c, &c.  Some are written so broadly that your liberal neighbour three doors down can SWAT you, just because he doesn't like firearms (and therefore, doesn't like you.)

This turns the idea of "Due Process" on its head, and reverses the basic underpinning of our judicial system - "innocent until proven guilty" becomes "guilty until proven innocent."  Yep - you have to prove you are stable and no risk - to someone who is not a medical professional, and who may have his own agenda (read, you're not going to win this one.)  You can fight this for a year or so, while your collection is in storage (that you often have to pay for,) and usually not stored very well, so everything can rust in peace.

This is assuming that you don't get killed in the course of serving the warrant - which has already happened. (https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/)  And, while I can't find any links offhand, I do remember reading of at least one governor (Colorado?) saying that the purpose of the law wasn't "public safety" - it was "getting guns off the street."

Sounds like an admission of guilt, to me.

I'm just tired of the rampant hoplophobia* of the Left.  If they have such problems with the state of civil rights in the United States, then they're perfectly welcome to pack up and blow - I'm certainly not keeping them here!  There are places they could move to where their wishes have already come true.

And leave the rest of us - who don't have hoplophobia - alone.

*Hoplophobia is the unreasonable and unremitting fear of inanimate objects, typically firearms.  Believed to be coined by COL Jeff Cooper, USMC (ret)

Is it worth killing someone for?

Ok, I know, I've been away for a while.  Can we just say I've had an awful lot happening around here, and leave it at that?  I never promised regular updates, that was in the very first post...

Anyhow, here's something I'd planned on sending to my Congresscritters (all of them - at all levels) and I think it makes for a good post here as well.  Let me know what you think.

-----     BEGIN     -----

Is this worth killing someone for?

              Before you propose a new measure, or a new law, that’s a question you should be asking yourself.  Is what you’re proposing worth killing someone over?

              Why?  Because that is what can happen.  It’s not guaranteed to happen, but it’s possible.  Id est:

-          Someone doesn’t wear their seat belt

-          Officer Law sees this.

-          Officer Law pulls the wayward citizen over to cite him

-          Citizen refuses citation, chucks it back out through the window.  Officer Law puts it back in citizen’s hand.

-          Rinse, repeat.  Officer Law gets frustrated with this, and decides it’s time to remove citizen from his vehicle.

-          Enforcement for not wearing a seat belt has now risen to the point of battery.

-          Citizen, not liking being treated this way, keeps trying to get out of Officer Law’s grip and restraint, trying to free himself.  Battery continues.

-          Officer Law finally gets citizen proned out on the pavement, kneeling on his upper back, and finally trying to get cuffs on his hands.  Battery continues.

-          Forgot to mention – citizen is asthmatic.  So, not only have we triggered an attack with all this rough handling (over a law where the only person being endangered is the citizen himself,) but we are now compressing his chest and making it difficult for him to get a lungful of air.  Enforcement has now risen to the point of attempted manslaughter.

-          Officer Law does not listen to citizen’s pleas for air (it’s happened in actual fact,) and maintains pressure on the citizen’s back until a backup officer arrives so he can have help handling this man.  Breathing stops.  Enforcement has now elevated to the point of manslaughter in fact.  Call the coroner, write the report.

Now, do you honestly think that someone not wearing his seat belt (just an example, mind) was worth getting killed over?  How about that fellow – Eric Garner? – in New York selling single smokes, and pretty much this happened to him.  Was “selling singles” worth killing a man over?  I am highly inclined to think not.

Every new regulation, every new measure, every new law that you propose, you should be asking yourself that question – is this worth killing someone over?  My own past experience notwithstanding, death is permanent.   You’ve ended a life – and for what?  Six bucks’ worth of smokes?  Not wearing a seat belt?  Someone who just got through a gnarly day, and now he’s being pestered for a taillamp being out (as opposed to simply being told such on the loud-hailer, which is how these things used to be handled.)

If you think that such minor infractions are worth killing over, you have a seriously skewed sense of priorities, and I question your ability to serve in elected office.

-----     END     -----

There's a comments section here, so let me know what you think!

Thoughts on Gun Control...

Sadly, the idea has been around for far too long...

While doing research on another topic, I had occasion to go through the database of US Patent filings at patents.google.com.  Me being me, I ended up going in several directions at once, and a couple of those directions meant using search terms that had to do with either "micro-stamping" or "smart guns," as generally used by gun-grabbers.  Turns out the first idea has been around for far longer than we thought - the first patent I've found for it was filed in 1924, and granted in 1927!

Anyhow, you can find these at patents.google.com, if you're interested enough to go through these on your own.  I just want to present the list so you know what you're looking for:
"Micro-Stamping," US Patent Issued
- 1,650,908 "Method & Apparatus for Identifying Ammunition" (Ramsey)
- 4,035,942 "Bullet Identification" (Wiczer)
- 4,150,624 "Bullet Identification Means" (Hammond)
- 4,175,346 "Firearm and Bullet Identification" (Zemsky)
- 4,222,330 "Magnetically Tagging Ammunition" (General Electric)
- 5,406,068 "Authorization Card for Purchase of Ammunition and Method of Using" (Nusbaum)
- 5,554,841 "Article Marker and Decoding Method" (Lynn LTD)
- 5,646,365 "Bullet Identification" (Collier)
- 5,685,100 "Bullet Cartridge Casing Identification System" (Atchison)
- 5,698,816 "Identifiable Bullet and Method of Manufacturing Same" (Boeing)
- 5,758,446 "Fired Bullet Identification System" (Atchison)
- 6,209,459B1 "Method for Etching Characters on Bullets and Bullets Made By the Method" (Blount)
- 6,293,204B1 "Code-Labeled Ammunition" (Regen)
- 6,462,302B1 "Rifled Weapon Barrel Engraver and Scanner" (Bar Code Bullet Industries)
- 6,779,716B1 "Rifled Weapon Engraver & Scanner" (Grow)
- 7,240,619B2 "Identifiable Bullet Which Is Unduplicatable" (Kinoshita)
- 7,533,614 "Memory Enhanced Ammunition Cartridge and Method of making and Using the Same" (Reich)
- 8,607,707B1 "Identifiable Ammunition and Related Methods" (Arnon, et al)
- 9,052,176B1 "Shell Casing Marker" (Stefano)
- 9,266,370 "DNA Marking of Previously Undistinguished Items for Traceability" (APDN, Inc)
- 9,908,321B1 Systems and Methods for Identifying Cartridge Cases Based on Ink Marking" (Kalvani IP Holdings)
(Submitted & Documented, not yet Granted)
- 2001-0027619 "Firearm with Identifiable Ejecta" (Randall, et al)
- 2001-0039690 "Firearm with Redundantly-Identifiable Projectiles" (Randall & Randall)
- 2002-0007580 "Shotgun with Automatically Marked Ejecta" (Randall & Randall)
- 2002-0174784A1 "Tagging of Bullets with Luminescent Materials" (Lowden, et al)
- 2002-0178959A1 "Ammunition Tracking System" (Rennard)
- 2003-0217665A1 "Ammunition Tracking System" (Rennard)
- 2004-0027630 "Method and Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0200108A1 "Firearm ID System & Method for Forensic Purposes" (Doiron, et al)
- 2004-0217273A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0220883A1 "Ammunition Cartridge Identification System and Method" (Lizotte)
- 2004-0227001A1 "Gun Identification Kit" (Lightfoot, et al)
- 2005-0005806A1 "Apparatus & Method for Identifying Ammunition" (Mace)
- 2005-0027630A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte)
- 2005-0045056A1 "Serial PIN-Numbering, or Coding of Bullets, Bullet Casings, and Other Projectiles as an Improvement for the Use of Ammunition" (Ositadinma)
- 2005-02141203A1 "Method & Apparatus for Cartridge Identification Imprinting in Difficult Contexts by Recess Protected Indicia" (Lizotte, et al)
- 2006-0174531A1 "Method & Apparatus for Reading Firearm Microstamping" (Lizotte, et al)
- 2008-0184873A1 "Process for Manufacturing Trackable Ammunition" (CBC)
-*2010-0295717A1 "Weapon Detection & Elimination System" (Rourk)
- 2012-0300065A1 "Optical Device for Measuring and Identifying Cylindrical Surfaces by Deflectometry Applied to Ballistic Identification (Willemann, et al)
-*2014-0083318A1 "Radio-Controlled Ammmunition" (Alcatel Lucent)
- 2014-0272097A1 "DNA Marking of Previously Undistinguished Items for Traceability" (Applied DNA Sciences)
-*2015-0007741A1 "Remotely Detectable Ammunition" (Nath & Nath)
- 2016-0216087A1 "Method & Device for Marking Ammunition for Identification or Tracking" (SICPA Holding SA)
- 2016-0257132A1 "Method & Device for Marking Ammunition for Identification or Tracking" (SICPA Holding SA)
-*2017-0160065A1 "Remotely Detectable Ammunition" (Nath, Nath, & Nath)
- 2017-0221115A1 "System for Tagging & Tracking Ammunition (Jarvis)

"Smart" Guns - Patents Issued
- 5,177,318 - Device for Identifying and Checking Ammunition of Auto-Loading Firearm and Process for Implementation (Mechanique Creusot-Loire)
- 5,915,936 "Firearm with Identification Safety System" (Brentzel)
-*6,283,034B1 "Remotely Armed Ammunition" (Miles, Jr)
-*6,735,897B1 "Fire Control Authorization System for a Firearm" (Schmitter, et al)
(Submitted & Documented, not yet Granted)
- 2002-0112390 "Automatic Weapon User ID & Safety Module" (Harling, et al)
- 2013-0019510A1 "Firearm Locking System" (Kemmerer, et al)

I know, it's a bit of a long list.  That's exactly my point - people keep trying to find a way to effectively disable firearms.  The ones I've starred should be particularly worrisome - either on Constitutional grounds (2015-0007741A1, Remotely Detectable Ammunition is an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, and possibly the Fifth,) or because your sidearm or rifle can be disabled without your knowledge (everything else starred.)  Whether the firearm is disabled or the ammunition doesn't effectively matter - either way, it won't fire.  However, if the firearm contains the disabling mechanism, it will drive up the price, but you only pay it once.  If the ammunition contains the disabler, then it drives up the price of the ammunition that you'll pay every single time you buy ammunition!

Nevermind that they'll spend the first 5-10 years it's on the market "ironing the bugs out" of "smart" guns (and they'll never be able to deal with batteries going flat - what do you do then?  Especially for a sidearm that lives on standby?) and I'm sure "smart" ammo will take even longer (miniaturized electronics.)  And who know what's going to power the ammo, or what form those batteries will take (or how much ballistic energy will be lost as a result.)  And then there's this little gem:

- 5,773,748 "Limited-Life Cartridge Primers" (Makowiecki, et al,)

which is exactly what it says on the tin.  And the inventor comes right out and says that the whole entire purpose is control of ammunition supply!  Sure, he says it's supposed to slow down violence from gangs and "subversives," but aren't those of us who are taking exception to the direction our government is taking labelled "subversive?"

The "limited life" of primers is given as being between 6 and 60 months, dependent upon storage temperature (ranging 0-50C)  Now yes, one should rotate their stocks of ammunition, but how many people in hot climates would not have been told about this (I'm willing to bet it would have been slipped it without us being told, if it hasn't already...?) and find out that their stored ammo is N/F and NG?

So-called "smart" guns would be something we'd have to be told about (new ones would be fairly obvious, and we'd be largely mandated to retrofit what we've got.)  "Smart" ammo?  We may or may not be told about it - the first indication may be if you're too close to a "Gun-Free Zone" and try to stop something, and find out your sidearm doesn't go bang! like it's supposed to.  Limited-life primers?  I can damn near guarantee you that we won't get told about that little "feature" being added to our ammo, and we won't find out until we run headfirst into it...

Feel free to look up the patents if you like, and please let me know if you find any I haven't gotten listed!

And, as always: Discuss.

Just a couple of passing thoughts...

-  "Sedition" - Rebelling against lawful authority.  What if the authority you're rebelling against is unlawful?

-  "Treason" - Giving aid & comfort to the enemy.  Generally assumed to be an enemy of the government.  But, what if the enemy is the government?

-  "Overthrow" - To depose or remove from authority by force.  I've been accused before of wanting to "overthrow" government, so let me go on record here:

I do not want to overthrow the government

I want to reboot the government

When you come right down to it - for all its flaws (to which I am not blind,) we did start out with a pretty damned good system of governance.  "A Republic, sir, if you can keep it."  Unfortunately, we're losing our Republic.  Government is taking more & more control - not only of us, but of the actions of the Several States - and if the new Democrats have their way, we'll be transformed into the USSA (with a new revolution to soon follow.  Socialist/communist governments don't last very long...)  Activist judges are ruling by diktat from the bench (creating law, vice interpreting it,) and Congress is beginning to ignore its own rules (remember the whole Obamacare flap?  Remember the "penalty/fee/tax/individual mandate/what-the-Hell-ever-it's-called" for not having coverage?  That's a tax measure.  Recall your high school Civics - tax measures are only supposed to originate in the House.  This one originated in the Senate, and it should have been struck on that measure alone!)

Just a couple of thoughts, at 0330 this fine morning.  Watch your six, and keep your powder dry.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!