The problem with being responsible

Responsible firearm owners follow the Four Rules:

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

This means that I get a nagging at the back of my mind whenever I see a Rule 3 violation in video games by supposedly “professional” characters in their idle animations.

I have been known to yell “Rule 3, dammit!” at the TV, too. Why do you ask? To be fair, gun handling on TV has gotten MILES better in the past few years.

Child rearing theory

Every so often, I’ll comment on something related to raising children, such as chores, or supervision (or lack thereof), or introduction to firearms, &c. And the odds are good I’ll get some parent who goes off on me, saying that I can’t possibly know how to raise kids, since I don’t have any of my own.

This usually provokes a headscratch from me (occasionally a headdesk); while it’s true I have not got children, I was one once! A lot of what I have said I’d do in one situation or another, I was the kid in that situation. A bunch else has been informed by the parents with whom I am close friends and or family with – its not like I haven’t (as an adult) been exposed to children I have been in a caretaker situation wiht.

 

Parenting, it’s not rocket science. Hard work, spread out over a double decade (and more, if you’re lucky), sure. But something everyone but the golems have been through from one end already.

Feline driving techniques

Chez Argent has a lot of hardwood flooring and a certain amount of linoleum, not to mention bathroom tiling. So our two cats have had to learn how to maneuver on slick surfaces. Their differing attitudes towards cornering are instructive.

Our older cat, Puck, has spent the majority of his life in a fully-carpeted apartment. When it comes time for him to make a turn on slick surfaces, he slows down, approaches the turn cautiously, and signals his turn well in advance.

The younger one, Nimitz, came to us after we have moved into this house. He’s also just out of the feline equivalent of the teenage years. His technique is much more of a powersliding, oversteering, 4-paw-drifting, attack on the turn without any braking to speak of.

To each their own, I guess. Neither of them can be provoked into doing donuts while chasing the laser pointer, however.

Who said what now?

Brian Miller, anti-freedom spokesperson had this to say about NJ gun laws in the wake of Brian Aitken’s release from prison

Bryan Miller, project director for the anti-gun violence group Ceasefire NJ, said only a "tiny majority" of people actually want to loosen the state’s gun laws. He hopes others don’t see the governor’s decision on Aitken as a precendent for "a get-out-of-jail free card for breaking our gun laws."

A tiny MAJORITY? That’s almost certainly a slip, but I’m going to laugh about it anyway. Your fears have come, Mr. Miller, because you’re right with that slip – we have the (political) power.

Screencap

 

Corpus Delecti Amendment

There’s a concept in Common Law called Corpus Delecti which “refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime.” Famously (and currently incorrectly) it is seen as the requirement to have a body before you can have a murder case (though this used to be literally true).

In a murder case, of course, the body is that of the victim, so if you have a body, you have evidence that there was both an identifiable crime and an identifiable victim. Regrettably, in other crimes, the lack of a victim is seen as no bar to prosecution.

What I’d like to see is a return to our Common Law roots of justice, perhaps with an amendment such as proposed below:

No person shall be, by the United States, or any State or other lesser authority under this Constitution, convicted of a felonious crime or subject to lengthy term of imprisonment or loss of civil rights, or ruinous fine, or a sentence of death, save that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in open court that their actions were both criminal in nature and that they were directed at an identifiable and unwilling victim or victims, or that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these actions were the result of felonious criminal neglect or depraved indifference"

This would of course go with my previous suggestion requiring intent, harm, or indifference be proved for a sentence of felonious penalties.

Neither one of which have a Snowflake's chance in the face of “for the children”. For one thing, it’d pretty much do in the War on (disfavored) Drugs, and a whole bunch of felony-level regulatory crimes.

Brian Aitken has his sentence commuted

Brian Aitken’s sentence has been commuted to “time served”. He should be home for Christmas.

Plus ca change

The last time Scott EVest sold an explicitly “tactical” jacket (a few years back), they only mentioned Law Enforcement as the target market, and made it moderately difficult on their site to find.

Today, they sell their Outback Jacket and the first of the “Key Features” lists ”20 Pockets designed for Concealed Carry, Law Enforcement and more”. Still a little targeted toward the LEO end of things (I need “special features to accomodate sleeve mics”? I think not), but still…

Disclosure: I am a moderately satisfied customer, nothing more, and nothing less. I;m going to be ordering a different jacket/vest (sip-off sleeves) from them later, as a replacement for a hard-worn jacket/vest. This fills the need for a turse for me, as well as increasing the amount of carry-on stuff I can take with me on a plane, etc. Furthermore, when I do need to go through a secure checkpoint (such as at jury duty or into the sterile section of an airport) I can place everything that’ll trip the magentometer into it and glide on through.

I’d like to be able to give my experience using it as a CCW cover garment or a pocket-carry garment, but other than once or twice having placed my (unloaded) G17 into the right-hand main pocket for grins while at home, I can’t. Maybe in a couple years when SCOTUS makes NJ go shall-issue.

Julian Assange vs Bradley Manning

These are the two most famous players in the ongoing Wikileaks scandal, and there are calls to prosecute both, up to and including the most severe penalties available under the Espionage Act, and in fact, charging one or both with Treason.

Ex-PFC Bradley Manning, a US citizen and Private First Class in the US Army, is the alleged leaker of sensitive information to a foreign national (Julian Assange) who published the information far and wide. He is subject to US jurisdiction both by citizenship and by location of the alleged actions, and as a US citizen and member of the military owes a duty to both. By copying classified information and distributing it to non-authorized persons, in gross violation of duty owed, he committed crimes possibly rising to the Constitutionally-defined level of treason by “adhering to [the United States] enemies, [and] giving them aid…” (Art 3, Sec3 US Constitution). If he did these things, he is (IMHO) an honorless oathbreaking traitor. The US federal government has moral and legal claim on him, and therefore may prosecute him to the fullest extent.

Julian Assange, Australian citizen, sometime resident of Sweden is the admitted publisher of this sensitive material, and probably did so with the express desire to harm the interests of the United States. But he is not a US citizen or resident and is (and was at the time) not on US soil when the events took place; and owes no duty to the US. The US has no jurisdiction, and thus no ability to prosecute criminally his actions. The US can bar him from ever entering the US, or becoming a citizen. I suppose the US could declare war on him, but not charge him with a crime. He opposes the interests of the US, but acting against the interests of the US is neither a dishonorable action or a violation of trust for him. The US Government has no moral or legal claim on him, and may not prosecute him for anything.

Citizenship means something, as do borders, remember. Otherwise, why bother fighting illegal immigration and the efforts of the US and EU to undermine US sovereignty?

Cheap Guns

Caleb goes on about “Life being too short for cheap gear” and a lively argument has broken out in the comments about whether the “one-bedside-gun” owner should save up for a $300-$400 gun or buy a $100-$200 used gun. The reliability goes down quite sharply at the low end and an unreliable gun in the hands of a novice is a bad idea, goes one side of the argument; they are better served by paying double for the security of knowing that their bedside conversation starter will speak for them all the time.

Which brings me to my thought: why are guns so durn expensive. Answer is two-fold: “economies of scale,” and “purchaser conservatism.” The first is at least partially due to government meddling; the harder it is to manufacture, purchase, own, and transport firearms, the less people will do any of those, and the smaller the market for firearms. It’s terribly hard to be a garage-shop innovator in firearms due to the insane over-regulation of firearms manufacturers, for example; and the smaller the market, the less customers you have to spread the fixed costs of innovation over. This should get better as we move closer to Constitutional scheme for firearms regulation, thankfully, as the forces driving lower firearms ownership will be reversed.

The second is harder to overcome. For a number of reasons, purchasers of firearms aren’t looking for the Next Big Thing; in fact they prefer the familiar to an astonishing extent. The continued wild popularity of the 1911-pattern pistol is one of the best examples. The validity of the reasons is outside the scope of my post; so I’ll take it as given. But I don’t have any good arguments against dependence on proven designs, either.

There’s a third reason that the market space for new firearms is lower than you might think; firearms are durable goods. There’s no reason in the world that you can’t continue to use a smokeless-powder firearm manufactured a hundred years or more ago today, if the weapon itself if sound; and there are plenty of mechanically-sound firearms kicking around. However, this should force down the costs of new firearms, because they have to compete with used firearms – which doesn’t help innovation because that meanst here’s less profit margin on the new guns.

Simple Gun for the ADD shooter

I’ve been known to say that a Glock, with its lack of extraneous controls, is the best gun for someone with ADD. There are 4 controls (outside of adjustable sights) on mine: the trigger, the magazine release, the slide release, and the slide itself. In keeping with Rule 1 (and subject to the same exclusions), I know that whenever I pull the trigger, it will go bang, and if it didn’t, there was a failure in the mechanism or ammunition. This facilitates the best remedy for dealing with ADD, setting routines. In this case, there is no routine to set, really. Insert magazine, rack slide, align sights, and pull trigger. I don’t have to check the position of any toggle or switch, unlock a frame-lock, etc. This is the minimal number of steps necessary to operate a semi-automatic firearm.

I could cut back the number of steps by using a double-action revolver or by keeping a magazine inserted and a round chambered. But at the range, I have to eventually reload, and the steps needed to reload a detachable-magazine weapon are  notably simpler than those needed to reload a revolver, even assuming speedloaders for the revolver. Press the magazine release, insert new magazine, release slide; all of the fine manipulations can be done by my master hand, leaving my off hand to insert magazine and yank the slide off the hold-back lever (and if I was willing to accept the wear on the slide lock notch, I could do that with my master hand as well). With a revolver, I have to release the cylinder, eject the empty cases, grab the speedloader, insert speedloader, close the cylinder. All of that is done with my off hand; leaving my master hand to hold the gun. For me, who is intensely right-side dominant (seriously, I am much less dexterous with my left hand; and my left eye is notably weaker than my right eye to the point that I can shoot with both eyes open with little difficulty), the less I have to do with my left hand, the better.

I suppose much the same effective simplicity is to be found in the 1911, with the grip safety and the thumb safety both being placed where the gripping hand will naturally fall, but there is the manual safety as well; and as a single-action pistol, I have to also be aware of the position of the hammer. Technically on the Glock I have to know whether the striker is cocked or not, but the position of the trigger will tell me that; I don’t have to look (and in fact can’t “look” at the striker). If the position of the trigger on a 1911 tells you what state the hammer is in, I will retract this last; I’ve fired a 1911-pattern gun once and only put one magazine through it.

Obviously, Glock is not the only provider of firearms with the minimal necessary controls, but their products are the ones I am familiar with.

New Template

Do not adjust your browser - I decided to poke at the templates and column widths.

Tree

 

Tree
Fri, 17 Dec 2010 00:00:00 GMT

OK – that’s two things I got out of almost getting my CS degree at Stevens. My lovely and talented wife, and the ability to LOL at the alt-text.

QotD – Metaphor and language

“What the whole series is, is Harry camping Voldemort's respawn points, to use a videogame metaphor. ;) “ – Gregg in comments to Howard Tayler’s mini-review of HP7, part 1

I think this one is going to take the award for “best use of metaphor via slang” for 2010 for me.

(And, yes, there’s a reason I’m adding a “Harry Potter” tag for later use in the blog)

More funny quotes

“Yup, Obama is being so subtle and “effective” at pushing his gun control agenda that I’m pretty sure if he keeps it up the NFA will be repealed by the 2012 election.”

Which isn’t to say that we should lean back and relax; only that, like any politician, he has a limited amount of political capital, and there are much more important things that he wants to spend it on. Gun control is an easy thing for him to speak in favor of and then quietly compromise on.

The worst thing that has actually come to pass, initiated by President Obama, has been his appointment of Andrew Traver as BATFE head. And I’m trying to find out if he actually did it as a recess appointment, instead of submitting him for “advice and consent”. There’s a bunch of FUD on the topic in the ‘tubes. It appears he’s going to get submitted for approval by the lame duck session, but that’s not (quite) the same thing as a recess appointment – remember that this is the same Senate that came within a single vote of getting national CCW reciprocity onto a “must-pass” bill, and did pass National Parks Carry. If the president waited a few weeks, he could have gotten his recess appointment and for a year we’d have been stuck with this guy with no Senate input. His appointment of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan certainly didn't help matters, but they didn’t really harm things at the SCOTUS either. Long-term, it depends on who is president when othe rjustices require, an act of fortune-telling I don’t feel like performing.

On the other hand, we did get National Park Carry, and several “administrative” efforts regarded as anti-gun etc, such as the reclassification of one-handed knives to switchblades and the decision to shred used military brass were publically and rapidly rescinded when they became known. Perhaps this is due to the intensive scrutiny his administration is getting. Perhaps he just doesn’t care. More likely, he’s got more important things to do. Symbols are easy – and to be honest, the appointment of a Traver to BATFE head is a symbol; the culture at the BATFE is so ingrained you could appoint Wayne LaPierre to head the BATFE and it wouldn’t make an immediate difference. (Note to CSPAN – I would pay cash money to see that Senate confirmation debate.) Not that it couldn’t mean change, just that Traver is not going to change the direction of an agency that already has demonstrated its institutional hostility towards firearms enthusiasts.

Questions and answers

Radley Balko poses a question that I’d like everyone to answer (not just the lefties he poses it to):

Putting aside what’s codified Bill of Rights, which was ratified after the main body of the Constitution, do you believe the Constitution puts any restrictions on the powers of the federal government?

The Bill of Rights is a series of Amendments; after all. They may have been necessary for acceptance of the document, and do serve to limit government further. Without them, though, are there (meaningful) limits on the power of the federal government?

See Radley for musings on Yes and No. I don’t call myself a libertarian for a variety of reasons (much less a Libertarian), but that’s a matter of philosophy more than anything else.I suspect my views of the limits of government are only a little looser than those of a libertarian, but the libertarian would accuse me of being “a little bit pregnant". Nonetheless, I do believe in (tight) limits on the power of government.

So, since I answered Yes I suppose I should set the limits of the power of Federal government and a test to determine when those limits are crossed, under the Constitution. First, see Article 1, Section 9, which explicitly limits the Legislative Power, and Sec 10, limiting the power of the States. Art 1, Sec 8 delineates the powers of Congress, and consequently by omission, anything not on the list is not within the Federal Government’s power.

The important “omission” clause is the last “directive” one in Art 1 Sec 8: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” The Federal Government does not have the power of legislation or like authority (regulation) outside of federal land, unless it is pursuant to one of the other clauses. I will grant that the Federal Park system, which was acquired by the consent of the Legislature in the “State in which it be” or was set up in federal territory where there was no State legislature, is a “needful building” for the purposes of this clause – which is one of the points of conflict between myself and a libertarian. Not sure about Federal Land outside of the park system or military bases, but almost all of that is in areas that were federal territories before they were states – perhaps the feds didn’t transfer those bits to the state when the state was organized as such., For more powers granted to the Federal Government in these cases, see Article 4, Section 3, which clearly contemplates the United States owning property that is not organized as Territories.. Likewise, the Interstate system is a Needful Building (particularly given that Congress has the power to provide for the “Common Defense”).

The next most important “omission” clause is: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. If the item or servicein Commerce is not travelling “among the several States”, then the Federal Government has no power over it. Period. The absence of commerce is not itself commerce. Some thing or service possessed by one of the participants in a transaction must have started in one state (or country, or one end must be under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe) and ended in another for this clause to kick in. Furthermore, transiting across a state would NOT kick it in – if I build my widget in Ocean City MD and ship it by boat to New Castle DE, load it onto a truck and drive it to Hancock MD (possibly passing through VA and even DC, depending on route chosen), this would not be an interstate transaction – though the truck’s trip might be, and the boat trip is almost certainly, even if their cargoes aren’t. (A little bit of thought should show why the conveyance should be considered interstate in these cases).

The negatives of those two clauses should set the limits of federal power pretty clearly, as, in fact, the 10th amendment specifically states, so it’s not like I have a radical idea here. The powers of the Federal Government can, and have been, expanded by Amendment, of course. It’s hard work, but it’s been done.

No, thanks, I’d rather see the egress

“Exit is pretty powerful. It's pretty much the only thing restraining Wal-Mart from offering you terrible goods that don't work, in a dirty, smelly environment with sullen clerks who cuss you out when you ask for things. And yet most stores are brightly lit, clean, filled with terrific merchandise that largely works as promised, and staffed by people who do try to ensure that you have a decent shopping experience.
The DMV, which is theoretically owned by us, less so.”

- Megan McArdle

This is a (perhaps the) difference between government and private industry. Private industry has to deal with their customers being able to go across the street, or they go out of business. There will be cases where one business can’t compete, of course. Government doesn’t have to compete. The customers must pay (via taxes) for services that they may or may not personally benefit from (which is admittedly larger than the set of services they use. I haven’t had the need to use the Fire Department’s services, and as an individual I am unlikely to directly use the services of the United States military, but I do benefit from both, for example). Regardless of the level of “customer service” from my governments, I must pay, however. An important part of the feedback loop is muted.

I could “Vote with my feet” I suppose. That’d get me out of New Jersey to a more free state, but, sad to say, the US is pretty much the most free nation on earth, and NJ isn’t exactly the nadir of freedom in this country either. Where can I go from here? And why would I? I love my country, and to tell the truth, while I can’t stand some of the aspects of living in New Jersey, I bought a house here after sober consideration. I can’t say it’s bad enough to make me leave, and there appears to be a move afoot to make it better.

It’s not really at the large end of things that government fails, really. The US Military works (it costs something wicked, but the cost of the second-best military is even more wicked, should it come down to cases.)

Government in general is all about saying “No” to someone or several someones. Even the military is an organization dedicated to saying “No”; it’s just that they say “No” to the rest of the world, not the US Citizen - “No, you may not invade X, conquer Y, or pillage Z.” It’s at the small end of things where things go pear-shaped, because the someone the government is saying “No” to is the taxpayer. The DMV, for example. PA’s alcohol agency. The IRS. One thing some of the legendarily bad government agencies share is that they are “gatekeepers” for things the customer of that government want. That is to say, their job is to guard access to a resource (yes, even the IRS – whose job is to protect the nation’s purse from tax cheats). As gatekeepers, their role is to say “No.”  Their policies, procedures, and training all revolve around “No.” Whereas a private company must be primarily about “Yes” or they will go out of business. Their customers will go looking for the egress, and someone who will say “Yes.”

I don’t want a government that will say “Yes". That’s not the government’s role. I just want one that only answers when ABSOLUTELY necessary. Maybe some of the money saved by this can go to training people to say “No” politely.

Bob Ingle on Brian Aitken

At the Asbury Park Press. Some interesting new information there, including a note that Brian wasn't arrested on the scene, a police watch commander making stuff up (“a new law”) and a more detailed list of the contents of Brian’s car that is yet more suggestive that Brian was moving (“clothes, silverware, plates, a computer”)

 

Governor Christie, free Brian Aitken

A second QotD

Because I can:

“Jeeze you think the head of security at a major metropolitan airport would make more money than that in a month.” Brian @ Tam’s

 

One no-prize to the person who, without following up on the link, can tell me why that caused me to laugh my fool head off. The hint is “t’is the season”.

Quote of the Day

“It's a complex game of chess, and attempting to win the game with the queen on the first move would probably end in disaster” – Robb Allen on the next batch of legislation in his home state. RTWT as they say, because his entire comment is relevant.

I bow to no-one in my burning passion to see Constitutional firearms regulation; but it won’t happen today, or this year. If we don’t build the foundation with small steps, we risk having the tables turned when (inevitably) the pendulum swings back. That’s what happened to the enemies of freedom, they built their edifice on the sand of Miller and the Collective Rights Theory; they played the Big Game, and now we’re playing the Small Game. It’s going to take us some time and a lot of effort. Detail work is tedious, but taking pains makes the end result that much better and stronger.

 

(OK – I have had my metaphor-mixing privileges revoked for the night)

Zombie Dreaming

So I woke at about 0630 this morning from the point in the dream where Johnnie Zed and his shambling buddies had just broken into the house I was in with a bunch of people and were milling about violently. It wasn’t my house, or any house I’ve lived in or even really recall having been in (the floor plan was a tad unfamiliar).

Two things struck me as odd after I woke up (aside from having remembered a dream – that’s really unusual for me). First of all, I was aware in the dream of having barricaded this house against zombies before and was wondering why we weren’t reinforcing the locations they had broken in at that time. Secondly, I was ineffectually fending them off with a broken broom handle. Whyfor no firearm, dream self? It wasn’t that I couldn’t get to one; it never occurred to my dreaming self. I demand a better-armed subconscious, Mr. Sandman!

Christie on Aitken

Interesting.

 

(H/T YankeeFan @ NJGunForums)

Interesting news

Heritage Firearms is opening a range just over the Delaware River in Easton PA in March or April. Their store in Rahway NJ is the New Jersey Firearms Guild, the place I’ve bought both my guns from; whose only fault has been a lack of a range.

Looking forward to another place to smell the gunsmoke and poke holes in paper.

 

(H/T NJDiverTony posting on NJGunForums.com)

Wayne LaPierre and Brian Aitken

One of the honchos of the NRA speaks out on behalf of Brian Aitken (launguishing in prison despite transporting firearms legally because a judge didn’t tell the jury the law). He asks Governor Christie to pardon this young man, and notes that “The NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund is helping to pay for Brian Aitken's appeal, and we will continue to support legal efforts to free Aitken from his sentence, but the governor can act much more quickly than the courts.”

(Updated: The link is no longer good - anyone know how I can get a permalink to 12/8 Wayne's Commentary?)

Freedom inches forward

My good friend Cemetery posts at NJ Gun Forums that Fred “One Gun a Month” Madden is seeking redemption.

The intent of S2190 is to  “streamline, without weakening, the regulatory oversight of handgun sales and transfers in New Jersey.” It sets up a Handgun Purchase Card system, which card “shall be available to persons of good character and good repute in the community in which they live and who are not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3; nominally good for 2 years (see below) and only allowing purchase from an FFL. (Private sale would still require a Pistol Purchase Permit).

A couple of interesting notes: first, the 5-year term is flexible. The superindendent sets the expiration date, between 2 and 6 years, with the fee prorated if it isn't a 60-month term.

To facilitate a balance in the administrative processing and issuing of handgun purchaser identification cards, the superintendent may issue an initial handgun purchaser identification card which expires on a date fixed by him, provided that the card shall not expire on a date less than two years or more than six years from the date of issuance. The fee for an initial card having an expiration date of other than 60 months shall be fixed proportionally by the superintendent.

It also does not repeal OGaM for HPP holders. The exclusion in the "new" section says that "except for OGaM" there no limitations on the number of firearms purchased

Except as otherwise prescribed in subsection i. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, there shall be no limit on the number of handguns a handgun purchaser identification cardholder may purchase from a retail dealer licensed pursuant to N.J.S.2C:58-2.

The limitations referred to are (underlining indicates an addition to the existing law):

Only one handgun shall be purchased or delivered on each permit and no more than one handgun shall be purchased within any 30- day period, regardless of whether that firearm is purchased or delivered to the holder of a permit to purchase a handgun or a handgun purchaser identification card

The law would almost certainly require the HPP to be laminated by the issuing authority, due to the requirement that the card be highly tamper-resistant (a sore spot with NJ firearms owners is that the Firearms Purchasers ID is not provided laminated and it not the same size as a credit card/driver’s license). OTOH, the photgraphy is to be done "at a time and place" of the superindendent's discretion.

Looks like it's a half-step down the road of eliminating purchase permits, which are fairly clearly unconstitutional, with a 5-year ID card which may or may not be ruled unconstitutional when the case hits SCOTUS. It is a loosening of the process, nothing more, but nothing less, either.

Who benefits if it passes in substantially similar form? FFLs who sell handguns. Handgun purchasers who live in a town with an anti-gun CLEO. Rep Madden (iffy). Gov Christie if he signs. The NJSP from a paperwork angle. The state from a financial angle.

Who loses: anyone who wants no permits after a SCOTUS challenge IFF the SCOTUS rules on one but not the other. They might decide that NICS at Point of Sale is enough and anything more is an infringement; but more likely they'll move incrementally.
Overall, long-term neutral, short-term positive. In the political game- extremely positive - this is a rearguard action by the enemies of freedom. Which means it’s time to advance rapidly with due caution…

Bad memetic puns

This Schlock Mercenary strip deserves this bad pun: “The wedding cake was a lie”.

Thank you, I’ll be here all week.