Sorry to be away from the blog longer than usual. It was a busy week, and frankly, a busy month. I spent last week teaching an advanced 40-hour MAG-80 class at Firearms Academy of Seattle. The prior three weeks had encompassed MAG-40 classes, also 40 hours each, in Colorado hosted by Hershell and Denise Phillips, Alaska hosted by Todd and Tammy Smith, and at FAS hosted by Marty and Gila Hayes. Many thanks to them and the great range safety/coaching crews they put on the firing line.
There was no time to comment on what else was happening in our world, and there was much.
With no advance warning (and, apparently, no input from the affected industry) our President issued an Executive Order that could have a profound, business-killing impact on the most vulnerable corner of the firearms industry. Read that and tell me how it’s going to reduce crime or man’s inhumanity to man on a larger scale, or be anything but a mean-spirited slap in the face of the firearms industry and the law abiding people who buy that industry’s products.
In Baltimore, after trials of three of the six officers accused in the death of Freddie Gray resulted in one hung jury and acquittals on the rest, the prosecutors decided to drop the pending cases. How coincidental that this decision came right after a judge announced that defense lawyers for the accused cops would be able to cross examine prosecutors about issues in the matter, such as the prosecutors’ failure to furnish exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Ya know, if this was an online class in Ethics 101 instead of the firearms blog at Backwoods Home, we could get some interesting learning points out of this. Had the decision-making district attorney said “OK, so maybe we shouldn’t have thrown cops under the bus without evidence to placate rioters and uninformed crowds,” I would have to give such reasoning a thumbs up for being ethical in the here and now as opposed to when the decision to bring those cases was made.
Or if District Attorney Marilyn Mosby had even said, “Hey, I personally think those cops did wrong and should be prosecuted, but after failing to gain a conviction three times out of three, I have to consider my fiduciary duty to the public as an elected official not to waste the taxpayers’ dollars on cases unsupported by facts in evidence, so I’m dropping the charges,” well, I’d have had to judge that action with that motivation as being within ethical parameters.
But if this blog was an online ethics class, I’d have to say:
“Class, your optional assignment is to write an essay on the theme of, If You Do The Right Thing For The Wrong Reason, Have You Still Really Done the Right Thing?”
As to the latest executive order, this tactic is par for the course our government has taking for years now. Give bureaucratic rules the force of law (fines, jail, property confiscation), make these rules/regulations vague and complicated so that those affected never know for sure if they are in compliance or in fact, in violation. This is how we have gradually lost much of our freedom (think EPA, IRS, and the original BLM- Bureau of Land Management). The kicker is, Obama may not have done this for “gun control” reasons at all, rather as a favor to a large defense contractor contributor in exchange for “contributions”.
In answer to your query as to whether doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is actually still doing the right thing, the answer is yes. Doing the “right” thing is always right, even if you do it while kicking and screaming in the process. I see Mosby as not so different than someone who goes on a murderous rampage, destroying many lives, after some perceived affront, then throws up their hands in surrender while continuing to curse the cops expecting them to treat them gently and with respect. But, having said that, she did the right thing dropping all charges. Now, the city of Baltimore needs to award damages to these officers at an amount of at least triple those given to Freddie Gray’s family (3×6 million each) You know, to stop the temptation for future such abuses.
The problem with Mosby (and apparently a significant segment of our populace), she sees, in her mind, nothing she has done wrong. Her moral compass is so screwed up by hate and bigotry, she never saw these cops as actual human beings, rather as pawns to be sacrificed on a fire of retribution/payback, for what she sees as wrong doing by whites and their representatives, the cops. Yes, she, and many other liberals, who decry painting a race of people as bad, because of the actions of a minority within that minority, eagerly paint a profession as evil, due to the actions of the minutest of a minority within that group. Her actions portrayed her bigotry.
Do not be surprised if she has a seat at the next Obama round table on race relations and police reforms.
Mas,
Being a neighbor of Massachusetts and an expert in law, what do you make of the situation the AG Maura Healey has made?
It would be interesting to find out, if the attorneys representing the officers, could, in civil proceedings, get their hands on any e-mail between Mosby, Baltimore Mayor Rawlins-Blake, and this man
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/baltimores-joe-louis-of-law/2015/07/25/a2db5bca-20b3-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html
made prior to and during the “investigation”, indictments, and trials of the officers, and the $6.4 million dollar settlement with Gray’s family.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/01/baltimore-prosecutor-has-ties-to-gray-family-lawyer-comes-from-police-family/
I’m sure the media is tying all these dots together. Yep, nothing to see here folks, move along.
Benjamin, I think the MA AG has simply taken another step in empty anti-gun symbolism that will do little or nothing to reduce crime. My own personal feeling, and not necessarily reflective of the policy of any entity to which I belong.
“The biggest problems we’re facing now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States.” -Barack Obama, Town Hall, Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008
Trick question, Mas. The answer is “No”. If the answer could be yes, then every politician could do the right thing because they consistently do things for the wrong reason: Their own power. And make no mistake that the AG in the PRM and the prosecutor in MD are politician only interested in their own power.
It is said that even a broken clock is right twice a day, but in a worldview like career politicians hold where “baseline budgeting” exists, “is” has multiple meanings, and you can “vote before it before you vote against it”, the clock has no hands at all so is never right.
If this sounds like I am anti-politician…you get a cookie.
*Biblical mode ON*: Further, I am firmly convinced that not only do a majority of people NOT have a moral compass, but they were either born without souls (hence no moral compass) or have made their Perfect Pact with Perfect Evil and will do whatever they please. *Biblical mode OFF*
Keep praying, folks.
Mas, your response to Benjamin sounds suspiciously like an attempt to avoid a possible future impeachment of expert witness testimony for a defense team. My, my, what a 1st. amendment mine field we are forced to navigate.
@ Dennis:
You are absolutely correct! Mosby shares a fault with a large segment of mankind. The fanatical left-wing or right-wing segment. This fault is self-righteous arrogance.
The fanatics of the world never experience even one micro-second of self-doubt. As far as they are concerned, their way is the ONLY WAY to go. The thought that Marx might have got it wrong never crosses the mind of any hardcore communist. The Nazis never doubted for an instant that they were the “Master Race”. The alcohol prohibitionists never faltered in their hatred for the “Demon Rum” and, likewise, the modern day gun-grabber prohibitionists never falter in their hatred for the “Demon Gun”. “My way or the Highway” is the common cry of every fanatic that has ever lived whether they be of the radical left-wing or right-wing variety.
To quote from the Bible again (Proverbs 12:15):
“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.”
Fanatics are NEVER wise! They always fall into the OTHER category listed in the above verse. 🙂
I took some relatives to Dealy Plaza on Saturday. I didn’t really want to go given that 5 police officers had been murdered. And on Friday the Black Live Matter (Racist) group was protesting again. I was surprised to see a lot of tourists.. I think mostly European. And we did have an incident where a car of black ladies pulled too far into a cross walk… my opinion is that black people in the US have a sense of entitlement.
Kare
I agree with Dennis. DOing the right thing for the wrong reason is still DOing the right thing. It just means the doer doesn’t have a clean heart.
Back in the 1990s, Newt Gingrich got President Bill Clinton to reduce the welfare rolls, and I think he even lowered taxes. Democrats don’t want to do things like that, but the economy improved, and Clinton took the credit for it. It was the right thing to do for the country.
Imagine a rapist beginning his attack. The victim points a gun at the rapist, so he turns away and flees. He ended up doing the right thing, even though that was not his intention.
Can anyone think of a scenario where someone does the right thing, for the wrong reason, and still does wrong? One scenario just came to my mind. Early in the book of Genesis, Cain gave an offering to God, and it was rejected, because Cain had a wicked mind or heart. Some say his offering of food was rejected because it was bloodless, but later on in the Old Testament, there are bloodless meal offerings commanded or suggested. So, I believe the fact that Cain simply offered food, would have been OK if his heart had been right.
TN_MAN,
My son and I were watching the Chris Wallace interview with Hillary, when he (Wallace) asked about her obvious lies about her e-mails, that FBI director Comey pointed out in his congressional testimony. Her response was that this was not what she heard Comey say. She went on to say that what she heard Comey say was that she had been truthful. My son blurted out “Good Lord! Doesn’t she know that everybody saw and heard what Comey said?” I responded, “son, she knows that people like us will know that what she just said is a bald-faced lie, she is reassuring those who hear everything through a liberal filter, you know, those who only hear those things that doesn’t conflict with their agenda, discarding anything that conflicts with their beliefs. She knows she will never fool people who actually think for themselves, and she doesn’t care what we think of her.”
This was what Mosby was trying to accomplish in the persecution of these officers. Only present a filtered version of facts to the judge and hide any exculpatory evidence. The judge wasn’t buying it.
She almost succeeded with the first jury trial, resulting with a hung jury. The following officers chose trials before the judge, I’m sure, partly for this reason, they feared those jurors, who would be seated from that area, would likely reject facts that conflicted with their own biases.”
Mosby, in her news conference announcing the dismissal of the charges, lamented the prosecution’s lack of authority to force a jury trial on a defendant, promising to push for legislation to remove that choice from defendants. Who knows, with a Hillary Clinton stacked liberal supreme court, she might just succeed.
I must confess some confusion. Since the US signed, but the Senate did not ratify, the ITAR, exactly why must we conform to it? (OK, politics-but beyond that) Perhaps more to the point, can be be compelled to comply with a treaty the US has not ratified?
Let me apologize somewhat for the above post. I had a longer entry in mind and had to leave the computer for an extended time. Apparently, Windows 10 decided that the thought was sufficiently profound for posting as it existed at that time. Others be warned.
Now then, some years/decades ago BATFE attempted a similar novel definition of “manufacturing”. It failed in the courts, who seemed to recognize administrative over reach when it saw it. It appears that, aided by ITAR, they’re trying again. One of the items of great concern is a phrase that an action “enhances the capabilities” of a firearm. Some of the activities that appear to trigger a need for a special (expensive) license seem to conflict with general current US regulation. Under US law/regulation the serial numbered firearm receiver IS the firearm and changes to the other parts-unless specifically prohibited- are no big deal.
However, the phrase “enhances the capability”-not defined-becomes problematical.
My comment in the post above, refers to presumed attempts to defend the changes in the regulations in expected court actions to follow the decree by the President. Shouldn’t fly, but it depends on the judge(s). The current nominee to the SCOTUS hasn’t met a government action he didn’t’ approve of.
I would also expect a heavy push to ban AR pattern firearms since they don’t require “machining” to fit new barrels and other similar operations.
Comments are closed.