MatthewMaynard.net

On Tuesday, I received an email from the Gun Owners of America, detailing House Bill 69, titled the Firearms Freedom Act. Similar to measures passed last year in Montana and Tennessee, the email summarizes it like this:

The Firearms Freedom Act has a simple concept. It states that if a gun was made in Virginia, and then stays in Virginia, then the federal government may not regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Cause. (Because, you see, the gun was never part of any interstate commerce.)

By gun they mean not only a firearm receiver but also the all-useful suppressor, a safety device the feds have deemed too dangerous for the average person to have, as it apparently protects hearing too well for us to use it. The bill is important because it is an assertion of Tenth Amendment rights against the National Firearms Act of 1934, which unconstitutionally requires a tax on and registration of certain firearms and accessories the government wants to make prohibitively expensive.

Anyway, back to the inbox. The GOA was in favor of the bill and encouraged the reader to be as well, listing how they can contact their delegate and do the involved thing of taking part in their own government. Later that day, I received two emails from the National Rifle Association, commonly perceived to be the “extreme” gun rights organization. The two emails also covered bills introduced in the VA House of Delegates, including House Bills 8, 26, 49, 52, 72, 79, 106, 108, 109, 152, 171, 236, 251, 475, 489, 505, 637, 870, 885, and Senate Bill 79, all removing various restrictions on the rights to keep and bear. Likewise, the NRA was against House Bills 520 and 879 and Senate Bill 268.

Notice anything missing?

The NRA doesn’t want to touch the separation of powers issue for some reason. I would guess that they feel it either detracts from their goal of being “on target” on the guns issue (sorry) or they feel it is a non-starter, that they can’t win when it comes to selling machine guns to the general public. Viewing it like this detracts from the main issue facing the nation, the one that touches not only the Second Amendment but all the other amendments and articles – will or will not the Federal Government be restrained by its originating covenant? If it will be restrained, then we must support HB 69, and any bill like it in other states. If the federal government will not be restrained, then why are we playing tiddlywinks with the details of what arms are protected by the Second Amendment and what aren’t?

Not backing HB 69 makes me wonder if I should keep sending them my membership fee. If they won’t put the money to good use, perhaps someone else would put it to better use.

Not today, though. War re-enactment turned uncivil.

The Confederate commander’s attorney was pleased with the decision. “I think justice was done today,” Rebecca Colaw said.
Ferguson, the Union commander, had a different take.
“The feud on the battlefield goes on,” he said. “All re-enactors are in danger from the actions of bullies on the battlefield.”

Funny, normally it is the Rebels who call the Yankees a bunch of bullies.

Yesterday’s high here in C’ville was all of 96 deg F, with approximately 50% (ish) humidity. Supposedly the heat index made it feel like it was 106, and today was mostly a slightly warmer, slightly stickier version of yesterday.

I didn’t think it felt like 106. I have lived for 3 decades with summers that routinely touched 106 (with 10% R.H.) or more every day. Today was mild by comparison – it felt like it was about 100, max.

Yet everyone here in town thinks it is the end of the world. When I got here, I thought everyone was a wimp when it came to high temps and I was the wimp when it came to high humidity. I must say, I think I’ve adjusted to it fairly well, because it really doesn’t seem that bad.

She wants to reserve the right to seize your guns in an emergency.
Now she wants to reserve the right to seize your house.
What else does she reserve the right to seize without cause?

Someone send this “governor” a copy of the fourth and fifth amendments:

(4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(5) No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If she’s reelected I will hang my head in shame.

I love this hobby. We picked up the Kit Peak Oatmeal Stout kit from the local brewstore a month ago, and we bottled it about 2 weeks ago. It is as it is advertised, deep black and very stout. It has oats and wheat, along with some chocolate malt extract. It has a simple hops flavor to it, nothing like the IPA I tried last time. I love it, as the flavors blend together into a smooth yet robust taste that is very easy on the palate but very filling to the stomach. The chocolate malt extract and the grains give it a slightly bitter taste, but nothing that can’t be easily enjoyed.

Gilby’s review is here, FYI. He mentions a slight carbonation problem that I haven’t noticed; this might be a result of a mistake I made in the carbonation & bottling step, but it might also be a result of the bottles he got. I’ve noticed that carbonation can be inconsistent, its probably the trickiest part of my brewing process.

Now what? Any requests?

AZ Governor Janet “rubber stamp” Napolitano has earned her nickname again, vetoing 8 bills the legislature recently passed. Unless I’m mistaken, she has vetoed more bills than any other AZ governor, ever.

Pardon me, but has she approved of anything the AZ Legislature has done? Has she suggested anything along with her vetoes? Has she had any of her legislative proposals brought to the floor? What, exactly, has she done to advance public policy in this state?

She vetoed the following:

• A bill prohibiting public employee insurance coverage for abortions.
• A bill capping property taxes in some school districts.
• A bill to allow charging illegal border crossers with trespassing.
• A bill restricting the ability to order emergency gun regulations.
• A bill prohibiting the sale of human eggs for cloning research.
• A bill requiring builders to provide affordable housing.
• A bill requiring a notarized statement from parents for abortions for minors.

Apparently, there was one other bill the TC article doesn’t mention. It, like the others, was probably useful. The TC opinion is that the trespassing bill was a good veto, as it didn’t provide funds for what it allowed. But then again, it did not require officers to arrest illegals, it merely allowed them to – giving them the discretion. Janet says she wants to get tough on immigration, but she whiffed a big opportunity to do so.

The gun bill would have prevented government from doing what it did in New Orleans in event of a natural disaster – stealing people’s guns that could be used for self-defense. Her veto is not unusual, given her party’s disregard for personal self-defense.

More than anything else, this set of bills has illustrated just how divided American politics has become. If party A wants X and not Y, party B wants Y and not X, simply because its the opposite of party A. If the Republicans were smart they would pass two separate bills that opposed each other and say publicly that both were a good idea for the country or state. Then the Democrats would oppose both and write the campaign ad themselves.

Seriously, though, can’t we have at least some agreement on something? If for nothing else, for the sake of solving our common problems?

Oh, wait, that would mean we would have to agree that we have interests in common. Heaven forbid we admit something like that.

Most sushi places in Tucson are one of two things: high priced and high scale, or low priced and low scale. Sho Gun, at the northeast corner of River and Oracle, strikes the balance point between the extremes, with excellent prices on very good cuts of uncooked fish. The atmosphere is laid back and comfortable but stylish, and the waitstaff is friendly and professional.
Read more…

The election is over, and the official results are in.

Uhlich beat Dunbar, Leal beat a Jelly Donut, Trasoff beat Ronstadt, there will be no pay raise for the council & mayor, and there will be a spending limit increase for Tucson. In other words, every position I favored (even the Jelly Donut) lost. I feel a little like Arnold must feel right now, but I don’t care. It just means his positions and mine are unpopular, not necessarily wrong.

This year’s results, in NJ, VA, CA, and everywhere else Republicans lost out to Democrats, find a root cause in the White House. Don’t get me wrong, people didn’t vote against Republicans because the White House is unpopular. The problem is that the weak Republican White House energized the Democrat base and demoralized the Republican base. For all practical purposes, no one but the bases votes in the off year elections. Since the Democrats were in a fever pitch over Scooter Libby and Iraq, they felt they could win. They were right. The Republicans felt they could hold their positions, but were apathetic about it. They weren’t enthused, and they lost. Duh.

This says nothing about the positions of the two parties. Neither the White House nor its policies were on any ballot cast yesterday. The Democrats may have been able to pick up two governorships, but they did not do it by advancing a positive agenda. They won by energizing their base and ignoring their lack of a platform. They ran against Karl Rove, but they ignored the question of what they will do once Karl Rove leaves town. He won’t be around forever, but then again, Newt Gingrich wasn’t around forever either.

But the Republican majority remains. And it won’t be going anywhere, except forward. If the Democrats want to sit around and fuss that they aren’t the party in power, I say, let them. We’ll be the ones who run a positive campaign that addresses the issues.

(Highly localized stuff follows. Unless you live in Tucson, this will probably bore you to death.)

The election is tomorrow, and there are three City Council seats open. All voters can vote for all three seats, regardless of where they live. In Ward 3 Karin Uhlich (D) is running against incumbent Kathleen Dunbar (R). In Ward 5 Steve Leal (D) is running unopposed. In Ward 6 Nina Trasoff (D) is running against incumbent Fred Ronstadt (R). My choices follow the link…
Read more…

There’s an election coming up in Tucson, on Nov. 8th. As usual, I am going to make my choices before I go to the voting booth, and since I have a blog, I’m going to tell you Why I Vote The Way I Do. There are two ballot propositions and three City Council seats to be voted on. I’ll discuss the propositions first, then revisit the issue after I’ve examined the candidates for City Council Wards.

Proposition 100 – Compensation for mayor and board members
The mayor’s current salary is $42,000 per year. The current salary of council members is $24,000. This proposition asks for a raise; the new mayor salary will be $52,080 per year, the new council member salary will be $29,760.

I find it a bit hard to argue against this raise, as I would find it a bit difficult to live on the council member’s salary. The mayor’s salary is closer to what I make, but I fail to see how you will attract qualified people to the office if they have to take a major hit in pay. It seems that unless they are extremely wealthy or have income from sources outside their salaries, people would not feel like they could run for the positions. This would discourage democratic participation in government, the opposite of what we want. I’m inclined to vote for this proposition, especially since the council & mayor have done well these past few years. Streets have improved and the local economy hasn’t tanked. There has been a rise in violent crime (if the sensational stories in the paper are to be believed), but overall I think the council has earned the raise.

Proposition 400 – Budget limits and the Home Rule option
The Arizona Constitution places spending limits on municipalities. Since these limits may not be the best fit for a given city, the state Constitution allows for the limits to be overridden for a period of 4 fiscal years, pending approval by the voters. This overruling is known as Home Rule. It amounts to a spending authorization, but because of the balanced budget requirements Tucson must obey, it does not come with a built-in tax increase.

The issue comes up because Tucson is growing. This growth will result in $9 million dollars more being taken in without being spent. Of course, this begs the question ‘why not lower taxes and fees?’, but we’ll come back to that later. Here’s the breakdown of the increase:

Note the large increase in spending in years 2, 3, and 4. The ballot summary book does not explain why this increase is needed – it only shows where the money is planned to be spent. Most of the money will go to Neighborhood Services (Police, Fire, Parks) and Environment & Development, things we can all agree are good for the neighborhood.

But an increase of not just $9 million, but $25-36 million? This strikes me as odd & suspicious, though not necessarily nefarious. It seems to me that because the mayor & city council are doing a good job managing the city with what they have, they should lower taxes in order to let us have back some of that $9 million dollars. Especially since there is an estimated $30 million surplus just three years down the line. I’m voting against this.

So there you have it, the propositions on the local ballot for this year. I’ll research the candidates for City Council & post on those later.