Today I started working on my book, a book about my departed and beloved sister, Rachel Marie (Allen) Amstutz. I do not know how long it will take to finish, only that it will be finished one day.
For whom am I writing this book? Me. I'm writing this because *I* want to have it; it will have special meaning to me. But I recognize others may want to read it too. I bet that my family will want a copy of it, and it would probably be good for Rachel's children to read someday, too. Rachel's closest friends from childhood and church, those to whom she reached out, and even some who accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in the wake of her death may also be interested in reading it. I very much hope to get this published for those who would share my joy in having and reading it.
This purpose of the book will be (at least) twofold.
1) God's Preparations. As time went by, facts came to light that revealed the many, many ways in which God was actively preparing the world for the day he would call Rachel heavenward; I want to document and discuss these.
2) People's responses. I know that many people penned journals, poems, and songs in dedication to, honor of, or memory of Rachel. I want to collect these. As word got out that she had moved on to her glory, letters of encouragement poured in from all around the world - literally. Some were sent to me, some to my parents, still more to my brother by birth, and of course, to Rachel's bereaved husband, my brother by choice, Scott. I want to collect as many of these as I can, too.
So now it comes to this: I need your help!
From whom I need help:
Family, friends, or acquaintances with Rachel, Scott, myself, or my family. (Basically, anybody who knows us!)
What I want:
I need more content, and you guys have it all!
If you did anything like write a letter, journal, song or poem, jotted notes on a Post-It, made a "sticky" on your iPhone, ANYTHING AT ALL in response to Rachel's death and the days and events surrounding it, please send it to me!
If you made a decision about your future (children? salvation? outreach?), tell me about it!
Rachel touched so many lives, and I want to try to capture as much of that as possible. I think you will actually be surprised when you learn just how much Rachel affected others, not just you.
=====
UPDATE: This info was added after this entry was originally posted.
To reiterate, I'm primarily doing this for myself. I personally am interested in seeing this stuff if you have it. If you feel comfortable sharing it with me but don't want it published publicly, that is perfectly OK! I've already had one person send me something with the request it not be shared outside the family, and I'll honor any such request. -Thanks.
=====
Timeframe:
As soon as you can get it to me.
I have a few things already to get me started, so I'm not sitting around waiting on things to get going. But I'd like to get your input as quickly as I can, while it is all still pretty fresh in your mind. Now, if you don't have something prepared can you can send me, take your time. Write it up. This will be an ongoing endeavor, so don't rush yourself.
Where to send it:
If you have electronic media to contribute, please send it via email to MySisterRachel+contribution@gmail.com. If you have something that cannot be sent via email, alert me via email so I can hook you up with a mailing address.
Book orders?
Like I said, I expect that there will be other people besides me who will want a copy of the finished book. If you are one such person, please send an email to MySisterRachel+bookorder@gmail.com, and I will let you know when the time approaches.
General contact information.
If you have anything to say or ask about related to this project, you can just use this email address: MySisterRachel@gmail.com (without the +-tags).
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Deterrent Effect of Defensive Handguns
A year and a half ago, I applied for my lifetime Indiana License to Carry Handgun (LTCH) in preparation for becoming one of the citizens who goes about his daily business prepared for the type of occasion I hope never happens. A person who is close to me had been such a citizen for several years already; since this person may wish I do not reveal publicly that he carries, I shall refer to him as Noah. Based on Noah's experience in the field of carrying a handgun daily for self-defense, and on his familiarity with my character, attitude, and general youthful foolishness, he strongly advised me to read a book by Massad Ayoob before I get a gun and start carrying it daily. In fact, his recommendation was so strenuous that he told my parents not to let me purchase or carry a gun until I had read this book.
Without question, I read the book and almost immediately agreed with Noah's opinion that I *needed* to read it before carrying. In fact, I agree with his opinion so much that, even now, I advise new shooters to also read the book first. It is paramount to the safety of all citizens that those who carry have the correct mindset, and Ayoob's book is an excellent tool for building that mindset (among the myriad other lessons he teaches in it).
Six months after I applied for my LTCH, and 4 months after it arrived in the mail, I got my first handgun. In the year since then, my collection of firearms has grown, as has my proficiency and familiarity therewith. I've applied myself to learn as much as I can about the safe, legal, and ethical use, handling, and storage of guns, ammo, and accessories for various purposes. As I come upon the 1 year mark, I thought it would be appropriate that I re-read Ayoob's book. I knew there would be more things I'd be able to pull from it as a result of my continued learning. (Shoot, when I read it the first time, I already knew I was going to have to read it again because there's just so much to soak up.)
Today I read a chapter that so perfectly demonstrates why I chose to carry a gun that I want to share it with you. It is perhaps the shortest chapter in the book, only a couple pages, so I'm going to share its entirety with you. I encourage you to read this chapter to help gain understanding in the matter if you've ever questioned, "Why would you want to carry a gun?" Moreover, read the whole book.
====================
"In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". Ayoob, Massad. 1980. Massad F. and Dorothy A. Ayoob, Publisher.
(Amazon link)
Chapter 10: Deterrent Effect of Defense Handguns
I have often said that in a situation where the law-abiding citizen is criminally threatened with physical harm, the great saving force of the self-defense handgun will be demonstrated more in its psychological deterrent power than in its ballistic stopping power.
I don't deny the fact that there will be terrible moments when the intended victim will have no choice but to pull the trigger. But if the timing is right, and if the assailants are of the typical mettle of a mugger who wants an easy score and doesn't want to shed any of his own red blood to line his pockets with someone else's green money, the sight of your blue steel may be enough to turn some faces white and some spines yellow, and let you go on living your life uninterrupted in its own placid colors.
For instance, it is a cold February night. I am leaving a Holiday Inn located on the outskirts of what is listed in the FBI reports as one of the most crime-free cities in America. It is cold, bitter cold, with a savage Nor-Easter blowing. I button my topcoat over my suitjacket as I walk through the darkened parking lot to the very edge, where I had to leave my car. Alone in the car-filled lot is a young man in a thin pea-jacket, smoking a cigarette, lounging against the hood of a sedan.
On this night, in this weather, it is not a place to relax for a smoke. I look around the lot, wondering whom he is waiting for. There is no one to be seen.
I glance back at the young man, and he is already looking at me, and our eyes meet. I nod to him, the instinctive gesture of one human being meeting another in a lonely place. He turns sharply away, looking fixedly at nothing, and draws on his cigarette.
Alarm bells ring in my subconscious. Something is wrong here. The same instinct makes my right hand unbutton my topcoat and my suitcoat, to give that hand access to the Smith & Wesson Chief's Special in its speed rig on my right hip. I feel the frigid wind knife through my chest. You shmuck. I think to myself, if you get pneumonia and die, they'll list your cause of death as paranoia. I keep walking. The young man, directly in my path, keeps looking away.
I pass within a few yards. And, suddenly, he moves.
The half-smoked cigarette (I remember it had a brown filter) is thrown to the ground, and with a violent sweep of his arm ("Marines, let's go!") he gestures towards a car in the parking lane behind him. And now a lupine face comes from behind a fender, its eyes on mine as the young man's are now, narrowed and hungry.
And they lunge. For me.
I am two people. One of me watches in fascination, never before having seen a human face in a frenzy that would draw the lips so far back from the teeth that the gums are showing. The other of me, without really thinking about it, draws the .38.
And, voila, another revelation. Never before, except in cartoons, have I seen people come skidding to a halt on the heels of their shoes, with their toes pointed skyward and their hands flailing for balance.
We stand looking at each other for a long moment. They can't see the wicked tips of the hollowpoint handloads in the chambers, and wouldn't recognize them if they did, because this is before the day when ACLU bleated to the world about Super Vel and police brutality. The gun isn't even pointed at them, just held casually at a 45° angle. But they know what it is, and they look at me with surprise. "No fair," they seem to be thinking. "You're not supposed to pull steel!"
I give them a big grin, partly because I often respond to stress situations with a touch of hysterical laughter, and partly because I can't think of anything relevant to say.
Then, I walk to my car, backwards, watching them with an occasional glance over each shoulder for a third mugger, who either isn't there or knows enough not to jump on somebody with a piece.
And then I get in my car and drive away.
It has been a long time since that happened to me. I often wondered if I was wrong in not trying the citizen's arrest number (I didn't become a cop until later). I wondered if I left them out there to pounce somebody else.
But I knew then that it was their two words against my one, and I knew they hadn't come up to me to bum a cigarette, it might have been hard to convince a judge of that in a town where there supposedly isn't any street crime. I'd rather think that I scared enough out of them and they gave up trying to mug a straight stranger who just might be "walking heavy."
Not long after that, I was in a major metropolis that doesn't try to hide its street crime problem because it can't. In broad daylight, I was accosted by a man-woman mugger team. The woman's deliberate staggering into me was supposed to throw me off balance and into the arms of her male friend. But I had worked with enough good judo teachers to stay on my feet, turn, and wind up facing her boyfriend with her on the other side.
He didn't brandish his knife like in "Blackboard Jungle" or "West Side Story." He just drew it. It was a fixed blade, a kitchen knife I think.
Matter-of-factly, with a big grin, he showed it to me.
Matter-of-factly, with a big grin, I showed him a four-inch .38 revolver.
Rather urgently, he shoved the bare knife back into his belt, and I hope he slashed himself. He raised his hands in a conciliatory gesture ("Don't shoot, we're all friends here, heh heh . . .") and waved at the woman behind him to cross the street as he back pedalled himself. He stopped grinning, turned to her with his eyes widening now, and made a desperate "get the hell out of here" gesture. Then he looked back at me and grinned even wider as he continued his backward movement.
I grinned back and put the gun inside my sportshirt again. He turned and fled.
I did not try to apprehend him. I wasn't a cop then, either. And that city didn't give gun permits to out-of-state travellers, or, for that matter, to its own crime-plagued citizens. He would have gotten a free lawyer. I would have spent some time in their local clink and would still have a felony bust on my record. If I hadn't had the gun, he probably would still have gotten off with his free lawyer, and I would have wound up in the hospital and would still have the scars. Or maybe the worms would have eaten the scar tissue by now. Either way, it was easier to walk away whole with no blood on my hands. And none of mine on anyone else's.
It was some years later, and this time I was wearing a police uniform. The call came over the radio, and I hit the lights and siren. A drug-crazed suspect had forced his way into a suburban home on the edge of the community I patrolled.
He was gone when we got there, but he had already left a residue of fear that would never go away. He'd had the wife down on her living room couch when the husband, hearing her screams, grabbed his Walther .32 auto from his night-table drawer and ran to her aid.
The guy heard him coming, and threw himself to his feet to take the husband. The guy was big. Then he saw the pistol . . . and got small.
He backed out the door screaming threats, covering his face like a vampire in a late-show movie cringing from a crucifix. By the time the husband had chased him out, his wife had run to the bedroom closet and fetched the loaded 12-gauge. As the druggie stood on the lawn screaming obscene threats at the homeowner, the latter fired a round of birdshot into the air, and the attacker fled into the woods.
During the hours that followed, as I and a contingent of brother officers stalked the suspect through the woods, I reflected on the value of that little .32 automatic in that man's night-table drawer. We'd had a decent response time—we were on the scene less than a minute after getting the hysterical phone call—but as I crept through the pitch-black woods that night, listening to the sound of the bloodhounds, I couldn't help but wonder what might have happened if he hadn't had that little gun. I admit, I didn't reflect on it too much at the time, because I was more preoccupied with the sounds and movements around me as I still-hunted the brush with a Kel-Lite flashlight going on-and-off in one hand, and a Colt .45 automatic in the other. But I knew damn well that without that little .32, we might not have gotten the call until it was too late.
Later that night, when the thing was (bloodlessly) ended, that man came up to me and said, "Officer, my wife is afraid they're going to arrest me for threatening him with a gun. They aren't, are they?"
That gave me something to reflect on, too. I remembered those incidents back before I started wearing a badge, and how my first thought was that "they" could arrest me for defending myself against violent assault. At that moment, I was glad I'd taken the call as R/O (responding officer or reporting officer).
I put my hand on the guy's shoulder. I told him he wouldn't be arrested. I told him to come in to the police station Monday morning and see about getting a "carry" pistol permit. And then I gave him the address of a friend of mine who runs a police equipment shop, and promised him a discount on something bigger than a .32 automatic. Somewhere in between came a lecture on trusting the frail hook-and-eye lock on his screen door.
Wanna few more? I've got files full, and thank God, only a few of 'em happened to me. But the documentation is there, with me and a lot of other people, most of 'em cops: when an innocent person is menaced by a violent criminal who doesn't give a damn for any life but his own, the very presence of a firearm is often enough to turn the situation around, to make the attacker say, "Whoa! I didn't bargain for jeopardizing my life instead of yours!"
I reiterate: the very presence of a citizen's gun, as they rightfully say in the Armed Citizen column in AMERICAN-RIFLEMAN, often prevents bloodshed on either side. You'd think the ACLU and similar groups would appreciate that more than they do.
Despite all the junk "rape defense manuals" and similar pop lit, there's only one way you can talk a violent criminal out of harming you once he's picked you for a victim. What you have to do, is hit him with a deep, existential question, something that will make him re-examine and re-evaluate his own personal values and life style, his own hopes and dreams, as related to the moment at hand. It can even be phrased without words.
A question like, "You don't want me to have to shoot you in the face with this .38 Special, do you, scumbag?"
Without question, I read the book and almost immediately agreed with Noah's opinion that I *needed* to read it before carrying. In fact, I agree with his opinion so much that, even now, I advise new shooters to also read the book first. It is paramount to the safety of all citizens that those who carry have the correct mindset, and Ayoob's book is an excellent tool for building that mindset (among the myriad other lessons he teaches in it).
Six months after I applied for my LTCH, and 4 months after it arrived in the mail, I got my first handgun. In the year since then, my collection of firearms has grown, as has my proficiency and familiarity therewith. I've applied myself to learn as much as I can about the safe, legal, and ethical use, handling, and storage of guns, ammo, and accessories for various purposes. As I come upon the 1 year mark, I thought it would be appropriate that I re-read Ayoob's book. I knew there would be more things I'd be able to pull from it as a result of my continued learning. (Shoot, when I read it the first time, I already knew I was going to have to read it again because there's just so much to soak up.)
Today I read a chapter that so perfectly demonstrates why I chose to carry a gun that I want to share it with you. It is perhaps the shortest chapter in the book, only a couple pages, so I'm going to share its entirety with you. I encourage you to read this chapter to help gain understanding in the matter if you've ever questioned, "Why would you want to carry a gun?" Moreover, read the whole book.
====================
"In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". Ayoob, Massad. 1980. Massad F. and Dorothy A. Ayoob, Publisher.
(Amazon link)
Chapter 10: Deterrent Effect of Defense Handguns
I have often said that in a situation where the law-abiding citizen is criminally threatened with physical harm, the great saving force of the self-defense handgun will be demonstrated more in its psychological deterrent power than in its ballistic stopping power.
I don't deny the fact that there will be terrible moments when the intended victim will have no choice but to pull the trigger. But if the timing is right, and if the assailants are of the typical mettle of a mugger who wants an easy score and doesn't want to shed any of his own red blood to line his pockets with someone else's green money, the sight of your blue steel may be enough to turn some faces white and some spines yellow, and let you go on living your life uninterrupted in its own placid colors.
For instance, it is a cold February night. I am leaving a Holiday Inn located on the outskirts of what is listed in the FBI reports as one of the most crime-free cities in America. It is cold, bitter cold, with a savage Nor-Easter blowing. I button my topcoat over my suitjacket as I walk through the darkened parking lot to the very edge, where I had to leave my car. Alone in the car-filled lot is a young man in a thin pea-jacket, smoking a cigarette, lounging against the hood of a sedan.
On this night, in this weather, it is not a place to relax for a smoke. I look around the lot, wondering whom he is waiting for. There is no one to be seen.
I glance back at the young man, and he is already looking at me, and our eyes meet. I nod to him, the instinctive gesture of one human being meeting another in a lonely place. He turns sharply away, looking fixedly at nothing, and draws on his cigarette.
Alarm bells ring in my subconscious. Something is wrong here. The same instinct makes my right hand unbutton my topcoat and my suitcoat, to give that hand access to the Smith & Wesson Chief's Special in its speed rig on my right hip. I feel the frigid wind knife through my chest. You shmuck. I think to myself, if you get pneumonia and die, they'll list your cause of death as paranoia. I keep walking. The young man, directly in my path, keeps looking away.
I pass within a few yards. And, suddenly, he moves.
The half-smoked cigarette (I remember it had a brown filter) is thrown to the ground, and with a violent sweep of his arm ("Marines, let's go!") he gestures towards a car in the parking lane behind him. And now a lupine face comes from behind a fender, its eyes on mine as the young man's are now, narrowed and hungry.
And they lunge. For me.
I am two people. One of me watches in fascination, never before having seen a human face in a frenzy that would draw the lips so far back from the teeth that the gums are showing. The other of me, without really thinking about it, draws the .38.
And, voila, another revelation. Never before, except in cartoons, have I seen people come skidding to a halt on the heels of their shoes, with their toes pointed skyward and their hands flailing for balance.
We stand looking at each other for a long moment. They can't see the wicked tips of the hollowpoint handloads in the chambers, and wouldn't recognize them if they did, because this is before the day when ACLU bleated to the world about Super Vel and police brutality. The gun isn't even pointed at them, just held casually at a 45° angle. But they know what it is, and they look at me with surprise. "No fair," they seem to be thinking. "You're not supposed to pull steel!"
I give them a big grin, partly because I often respond to stress situations with a touch of hysterical laughter, and partly because I can't think of anything relevant to say.
Then, I walk to my car, backwards, watching them with an occasional glance over each shoulder for a third mugger, who either isn't there or knows enough not to jump on somebody with a piece.
And then I get in my car and drive away.
It has been a long time since that happened to me. I often wondered if I was wrong in not trying the citizen's arrest number (I didn't become a cop until later). I wondered if I left them out there to pounce somebody else.
But I knew then that it was their two words against my one, and I knew they hadn't come up to me to bum a cigarette, it might have been hard to convince a judge of that in a town where there supposedly isn't any street crime. I'd rather think that I scared enough out of them and they gave up trying to mug a straight stranger who just might be "walking heavy."
Not long after that, I was in a major metropolis that doesn't try to hide its street crime problem because it can't. In broad daylight, I was accosted by a man-woman mugger team. The woman's deliberate staggering into me was supposed to throw me off balance and into the arms of her male friend. But I had worked with enough good judo teachers to stay on my feet, turn, and wind up facing her boyfriend with her on the other side.
He didn't brandish his knife like in "Blackboard Jungle" or "West Side Story." He just drew it. It was a fixed blade, a kitchen knife I think.
Matter-of-factly, with a big grin, he showed it to me.
Matter-of-factly, with a big grin, I showed him a four-inch .38 revolver.
Rather urgently, he shoved the bare knife back into his belt, and I hope he slashed himself. He raised his hands in a conciliatory gesture ("Don't shoot, we're all friends here, heh heh . . .") and waved at the woman behind him to cross the street as he back pedalled himself. He stopped grinning, turned to her with his eyes widening now, and made a desperate "get the hell out of here" gesture. Then he looked back at me and grinned even wider as he continued his backward movement.
I grinned back and put the gun inside my sportshirt again. He turned and fled.
I did not try to apprehend him. I wasn't a cop then, either. And that city didn't give gun permits to out-of-state travellers, or, for that matter, to its own crime-plagued citizens. He would have gotten a free lawyer. I would have spent some time in their local clink and would still have a felony bust on my record. If I hadn't had the gun, he probably would still have gotten off with his free lawyer, and I would have wound up in the hospital and would still have the scars. Or maybe the worms would have eaten the scar tissue by now. Either way, it was easier to walk away whole with no blood on my hands. And none of mine on anyone else's.
It was some years later, and this time I was wearing a police uniform. The call came over the radio, and I hit the lights and siren. A drug-crazed suspect had forced his way into a suburban home on the edge of the community I patrolled.
He was gone when we got there, but he had already left a residue of fear that would never go away. He'd had the wife down on her living room couch when the husband, hearing her screams, grabbed his Walther .32 auto from his night-table drawer and ran to her aid.
The guy heard him coming, and threw himself to his feet to take the husband. The guy was big. Then he saw the pistol . . . and got small.
He backed out the door screaming threats, covering his face like a vampire in a late-show movie cringing from a crucifix. By the time the husband had chased him out, his wife had run to the bedroom closet and fetched the loaded 12-gauge. As the druggie stood on the lawn screaming obscene threats at the homeowner, the latter fired a round of birdshot into the air, and the attacker fled into the woods.
During the hours that followed, as I and a contingent of brother officers stalked the suspect through the woods, I reflected on the value of that little .32 automatic in that man's night-table drawer. We'd had a decent response time—we were on the scene less than a minute after getting the hysterical phone call—but as I crept through the pitch-black woods that night, listening to the sound of the bloodhounds, I couldn't help but wonder what might have happened if he hadn't had that little gun. I admit, I didn't reflect on it too much at the time, because I was more preoccupied with the sounds and movements around me as I still-hunted the brush with a Kel-Lite flashlight going on-and-off in one hand, and a Colt .45 automatic in the other. But I knew damn well that without that little .32, we might not have gotten the call until it was too late.
Later that night, when the thing was (bloodlessly) ended, that man came up to me and said, "Officer, my wife is afraid they're going to arrest me for threatening him with a gun. They aren't, are they?"
That gave me something to reflect on, too. I remembered those incidents back before I started wearing a badge, and how my first thought was that "they" could arrest me for defending myself against violent assault. At that moment, I was glad I'd taken the call as R/O (responding officer or reporting officer).
I put my hand on the guy's shoulder. I told him he wouldn't be arrested. I told him to come in to the police station Monday morning and see about getting a "carry" pistol permit. And then I gave him the address of a friend of mine who runs a police equipment shop, and promised him a discount on something bigger than a .32 automatic. Somewhere in between came a lecture on trusting the frail hook-and-eye lock on his screen door.
Wanna few more? I've got files full, and thank God, only a few of 'em happened to me. But the documentation is there, with me and a lot of other people, most of 'em cops: when an innocent person is menaced by a violent criminal who doesn't give a damn for any life but his own, the very presence of a firearm is often enough to turn the situation around, to make the attacker say, "Whoa! I didn't bargain for jeopardizing my life instead of yours!"
I reiterate: the very presence of a citizen's gun, as they rightfully say in the Armed Citizen column in AMERICAN-RIFLEMAN, often prevents bloodshed on either side. You'd think the ACLU and similar groups would appreciate that more than they do.
Despite all the junk "rape defense manuals" and similar pop lit, there's only one way you can talk a violent criminal out of harming you once he's picked you for a victim. What you have to do, is hit him with a deep, existential question, something that will make him re-examine and re-evaluate his own personal values and life style, his own hopes and dreams, as related to the moment at hand. It can even be phrased without words.
A question like, "You don't want me to have to shoot you in the face with this .38 Special, do you, scumbag?"
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
States Fighting Federal Government Takeover of Health Care
There is so much wrong, on so many levels, with the passage of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" that it is tough to know where to even begin. My last post on this blog was focused on sharing a copy of my petition to Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller that he fight the bill, which was signed yesterday (23 March 2010) by the President.
This post follows up with some good news that I turned up in my continued research:
1. Indiana is going to fight the health care law;
2. Indiana is among many states fighting the health care law;
3. The law is an overt attempt by the federal government, especially Democrats, to "control the people."
The Law is Bad for Indiana... and We'll Fight It
It is unconstitutional, limits options, and raises costs in Indiana
According to this news release on IN.gov, AG Zoeller is "reviewing options for legal challenge to health care bill". The news release included a link to the official report that AG Zoeller submitted to Senator Luger (US Senate, R-IN) on 05 February 2010 analyzing Senate version of the health care bill. Here is a link to the full report on IN.gov (PDF, 55 pages). And here is a summary of the report on IN.gov (1 page, web).
So why exactly is this law bad for Indiana? Check out these highlights from AG Zoeller's report (or read the full report, if you wish).
Indiana is Not Alone in the Fight
14 Sovereign States have already filed suit
In the build-up the bill's final passage and signing, I was most aware of the Commonwealth of Virginia's opposition to it. Little did I know, the ball was already rolling throughout the Union.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (website | Twitter) was outspoken in his opposition and made it clear before the House even passed the bill that Virginia would file suit if it became law. When the House did pass the bill, AG Cuccinelli tweeted: "Well, they did it. Once the president signs it into law, we'll walk across the street and file suit b/c the ind mandate is unconstitutional".
Not only has the Attorney General stood up for the sovereignty of the Commonwealth and the liberty of its People, but the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill, expected to be signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell today (24 March 2010), that explicitly makes it illegal for the federal government to force Virginia residents to purchase health care. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", since the Congress was not granted authority to force citizens to purchase a product or service, State laws supercede the federal government's "law".
As I said, I have been most aware of the fight in Virginia, but that last link includes a tidbit that Idaho has actually enacted such a law already.
In separate action, the attorneys general from thirteen (13) other states have jointly filed suit in the US District Court in Florida.
One interesting note is that, while in most states the Attorney General and the Governor are allies in this battle, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire supports the health care law that WA AG Rob McKenna has filed suit to block. Since both are elected offices, neither has authority over the other's actions.
Thankfully, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been just as adamantly opposed to the federal government's takeover of the health care system. I'm encouraged to see that my home state is but one among many with heads of sound logic and balls of steel to stand up to the federal government's outright attempt to "control the people".
The Real Reason for the Health Care Bill
To control the people
Oh, did you miss that? Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI) admitted "it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps ... to control the people." He went on to say that "our Republicans have spent a long time not participating [in trying to control the people], not helping [the effort to control the people], prepping [to fight Democratic power-grabs], and delaying [Democratic power grabs],... they have contributed nothing to [the attempt to control the people] and made no offer whatsoever as to what it is they want or what they stand for."
There you have it, folks, straight from the horse's mouth. "Democrats been working a long time to advance the federal government's power to control the people, and Republicans have done nothing but try to stop them." And he is sorely mistaken if he believes Republicans have not made it known what they stand against. The very fact they've put up such a fight against these kinds of power-grabs speak louder than any official press-release or party policy.
Thank God we have States like Indiana and the others who have already filed suit to stop the injustice and folly that is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
This post follows up with some good news that I turned up in my continued research:
1. Indiana is going to fight the health care law;
2. Indiana is among many states fighting the health care law;
3. The law is an overt attempt by the federal government, especially Democrats, to "control the people."
The Law is Bad for Indiana... and We'll Fight It
It is unconstitutional, limits options, and raises costs in Indiana
According to this news release on IN.gov, AG Zoeller is "reviewing options for legal challenge to health care bill". The news release included a link to the official report that AG Zoeller submitted to Senator Luger (US Senate, R-IN) on 05 February 2010 analyzing Senate version of the health care bill. Here is a link to the full report on IN.gov (PDF, 55 pages). And here is a summary of the report on IN.gov (1 page, web).
So why exactly is this law bad for Indiana? Check out these highlights from AG Zoeller's report (or read the full report, if you wish).
- Constitutionality at issue.
- Never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase any good or service, nor has it regulated inactivity.
- The bill's "Nebraska Compromise" amendment ... appears to violate Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
- Insurance exchanges problematic.
- Indiana Medicaid costs.
- Increases Indiana's Medicaid costs by $2.4 billion over 10 years.
- Diverts pharmaceutical rebate savings from the states to the federal government, potentially resulting in a loss to Indiana of $750 million by 2019.
- State insurance plans preempted.
- [May] spell the end of the popular Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) where low-income Hoosiers now are able to purchase state-run health coverage — funded partially through cigarette tax — that emphasizes preventive care.
- Economic impact.
Substantial negative impact on two Indiana industries that employed a combined 35,500 Hoosiers in 2007.
The report concludes that the Senate version of the health care bill is unlikely to achieve one of its major goals, reducing the cost of health care. ... The Senate bill is likely to cause a steep increase in insurance premiums.
Indiana is Not Alone in the Fight
14 Sovereign States have already filed suit
In the build-up the bill's final passage and signing, I was most aware of the Commonwealth of Virginia's opposition to it. Little did I know, the ball was already rolling throughout the Union.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (website | Twitter) was outspoken in his opposition and made it clear before the House even passed the bill that Virginia would file suit if it became law. When the House did pass the bill, AG Cuccinelli tweeted: "Well, they did it. Once the president signs it into law, we'll walk across the street and file suit b/c the ind mandate is unconstitutional".
Not only has the Attorney General stood up for the sovereignty of the Commonwealth and the liberty of its People, but the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill, expected to be signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell today (24 March 2010), that explicitly makes it illegal for the federal government to force Virginia residents to purchase health care. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", since the Congress was not granted authority to force citizens to purchase a product or service, State laws supercede the federal government's "law".
As I said, I have been most aware of the fight in Virginia, but that last link includes a tidbit that Idaho has actually enacted such a law already.
In separate action, the attorneys general from thirteen (13) other states have jointly filed suit in the US District Court in Florida.
| Attorney General | State of |
| Bill McCollum | Florida |
| Henry McMaster | South Carolina |
| Jon Bruning | Nebraska |
| Greg Abbott | Texas |
| Mark L. Shurtleff | Utah |
| James D. "Buddy" Caldwell | Louisiana |
| Troy King | Alabama |
| Michael A. Cox | Michigan |
| John W. Suthers | Colorado |
| Thomas W. Corbett, Jr. | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania |
| Robert M. McKenna | Washington |
| Lawrence G. Wasden | Idaho |
| Marty J. Jackley | South Dakota |
One interesting note is that, while in most states the Attorney General and the Governor are allies in this battle, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire supports the health care law that WA AG Rob McKenna has filed suit to block. Since both are elected offices, neither has authority over the other's actions.
Thankfully, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been just as adamantly opposed to the federal government's takeover of the health care system. I'm encouraged to see that my home state is but one among many with heads of sound logic and balls of steel to stand up to the federal government's outright attempt to "control the people".
The Real Reason for the Health Care Bill
To control the people
Oh, did you miss that? Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI) admitted "it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps ... to control the people." He went on to say that "our Republicans have spent a long time not participating [in trying to control the people], not helping [the effort to control the people], prepping [to fight Democratic power-grabs], and delaying [Democratic power grabs],... they have contributed nothing to [the attempt to control the people] and made no offer whatsoever as to what it is they want or what they stand for."
There you have it, folks, straight from the horse's mouth. "Democrats been working a long time to advance the federal government's power to control the people, and Republicans have done nothing but try to stop them." And he is sorely mistaken if he believes Republicans have not made it known what they stand against. The very fact they've put up such a fight against these kinds of power-grabs speak louder than any official press-release or party policy.
Thank God we have States like Indiana and the others who have already filed suit to stop the injustice and folly that is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
Monday, March 22, 2010
Fighting for State's Rights & Personal Liberty
It has been asked, "How do we get our country back?"
There is no simple answer. We have been slowly eroded by politicians from both parties for decades, and it will likewise take a while to recover. But one thing is known - the first step is to contact your representatives. If they will listen, great! Tell them how they can best represent you and the best interest of the people. If not, it is time to start looking for a replacement - who knows, the right man for the job may be the one in the mirror.
With the passage of the "health care" bill by the US House of Representatives yesterday, we have taken a giant leap towards becoming the Union of Socialist States of America (USSA). Thankfully, several of the Sovereign States have already made it known that the federal government, a creature OF the Sovereign States, has overstepped its bounds, gone beyond the power granted to it by the States that created it.
At this point in time, at least 10 States have disclosed plans to file a lawsuit against the federal government for overstepping its powers with the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". More Sovereign States are likely to follow. My fellow Hoosiers, I encourage you to contact Attorney General Greg Zoeller in support of Indiana joining the list of States with the cajones to stand up to the federal government.
Below is a copy of the email I sent to AG Zoeller, and here is a link to contact him yourself. (If you are not a Hoosier, please contact your respective attorney general an encourage him to join the cause of State's Rights and Personal Liberty.
All for now...
Caleb
There is no simple answer. We have been slowly eroded by politicians from both parties for decades, and it will likewise take a while to recover. But one thing is known - the first step is to contact your representatives. If they will listen, great! Tell them how they can best represent you and the best interest of the people. If not, it is time to start looking for a replacement - who knows, the right man for the job may be the one in the mirror.
With the passage of the "health care" bill by the US House of Representatives yesterday, we have taken a giant leap towards becoming the Union of Socialist States of America (USSA). Thankfully, several of the Sovereign States have already made it known that the federal government, a creature OF the Sovereign States, has overstepped its bounds, gone beyond the power granted to it by the States that created it.
At this point in time, at least 10 States have disclosed plans to file a lawsuit against the federal government for overstepping its powers with the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". More Sovereign States are likely to follow. My fellow Hoosiers, I encourage you to contact Attorney General Greg Zoeller in support of Indiana joining the list of States with the cajones to stand up to the federal government.
Below is a copy of the email I sent to AG Zoeller, and here is a link to contact him yourself. (If you are not a Hoosier, please contact your respective attorney general an encourage him to join the cause of State's Rights and Personal Liberty.
Dear Mr. Greg Zoeller:
I write to you on a day that is dreary not only because of the rainy weather, but more importantly because of the decision of the United States Congress to pass the "health care" bill last night. The bill was strongly opposed by a majority of American citizens throughout our great nation; watchdog groups warned us of the repercussions; the Democratic Party even lost seats already because citizens simply did not want this bill enacted. Yet, Congress, in its Infinite Wisdom, decided that the We the People are not intelligent nor wise enough to make this sort of decision, that it is somehow ordained to push this down our necks against our every petition, plea, and protest. Nevertheless, as of today, what has been done has already been done.
Yesterday, the President said, "This is what 'change' looks like."
"Oh really, Mr. President?" is my response. "Just wait until you see November... then you will truly see 'change'!"
I was disheartened to see that all five (5) of the Democratic representatives from Indiana to the United States House of Representatives voted in support of this bill. Surely they will receive their reckoning come election time. In the mean time, however, we have work to be done. As the highest legal advisor to the State of Indiana, I implore you to help us fight off this tragedy of American greatness that is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
As many as twelve (12) Sovereign States of our Great Union have begun preparations to file a lawsuit against the federal government's seizure of the health care system [1]. Most outspoken on this intention has been Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, but Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has also made his intentions known. Furthermore, the attorneys general from Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington will be standing up to the federal government on behalf of their respective states [2]. I respectfully petition you, sir, to join the growing throng of opposition among these Sovereign States against the unconstitutional behavior of the members of the Congress of the United States and the White House.
Our very own Governor Mitch Daniels has been publicly against the passage of this outrageous bill [3]. I am a young man, and I have not been active in following politics until just the past two years, but my research and diligence has given me great faith in our State and in our Governor. I know you are much more aware of all the ramifications of this "reform" bill than I, but from every stretch of my knowledge, from every byte of insight I've extracted from my elders, advisors, peers, and mentors, and from every application of my sincerest wisdom, I have concluded that this Act must be undone at the earliest possible moment in order to protect, if not the Union as a whole, the State of Indiana. So again, I encourage you to join Governor Daniels in opposition to this bill for the welfare of our own state.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Caleb W. Allen
Fort Wayne, IN
B.S., Computer Science, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, 2009
Sources:
[1] http://www.wbur.org/npr/125030078
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/
[3] http://www.wthitv.com/dpps/news/indiana/governor-mitch-daniels-releases-statement-on-health-care-bill_3284623
All for now...
Caleb
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Why There Should Be No Ban On Texting-and-driving
That video is gut wrenching. Were you even able to watch its entirety? The part that hurts me the most is seeing the little girl asking "Why won't Mommy and Daddy wake up?" and the little infant with an empty stare while emergency personnel frantically check for a pulse because I see in them my two nieces, ages 8 months and 6 years, who lost their mother when my sister Rachel passed away suddenly 8 months ago.
The accident depicted was caused by a teenaged girl texting while driving. So how could I possibly still oppose a legal restriction against texting while driving? There are many reasons, but let me discuss three of them:
1. Such a ban can not be well enforced.
2. "Texting" isn't the cause of accidents.
3. I have a better idea to handle the issue.
For the sake of discussion, let us consider HB 1279 which passed in the Indiana House yesterday (02 FEB 10). You should click that link to get more details on the specifics and definitions, but this is the main part of the bill:
A person may not use a telecommunications device to transmit a text message or electronic mail message while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology.
1. Non-Enforceability
Law enforcement officers (LEOs) have no legal way of determining if you are texting.
In Indiana, using your wireless phone to make phone calls while driving is not illegal. In fact, Indiana does not even have a hands-free law regarding placing calls. Neither is there any restriction on using the GPS, music player, camera, or even game features that most modern phones include. These facts demonstrate that there are legal reasons to be looking at your phone and pressing buttons (or touching the screen) while driving.
So, a LEO may visually observe you pushing buttons on your phone while driving, but this is not sufficient to pull you over under the proposed law. This is different from Indiana's "Seat Belt Law" which specifically allows LEOs to stop a driver under Indiana Code 9-19-10-3.1.
Suppose that you have already been pulled over. A LEO may very well want to find out if you were in violation of the "Texting While Driving Law", but he cannot. If the officer asks you if you were texting, the Constitution of the United States protects you from answering. If the officer asks (or even "orders") you to produce your phone for inspection, the same Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure without 1) a warrant or 2) probable cause.
There are two very important things to remember. The first is that under United States law, the exercise of your Fifth Amendment right is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as such. The second is that, since there are legal reasons to be pushing buttons (or touching the screen) of a phone, the fact that you were doing so does not provide probable cause for a search or seizure of your phone, and neither does refusing to tell the LEO if you were texting develop probable cause.
So, without probable cause or a warrant to search your wireless phone (or a subpoena for your phone records), there is no legal way for an officer of the law to determine if a driver was to be in violation of the "Texting While Driving Law". I must note that this does not apply to drivers foolish enough to waive their 4th and 5th Amendment protections by either admitting guilt or producing the evidence of guilt without a warrant.
June 2012 Update: Indiana passed a law banning texting while driving. Now, after several years, hardly any tickets have been written because… cops say they can't enforce it. "Police struggle to enforce texting law" - WISH-TV.
2. The Real Cause of Accidents
The real cause of accidents is not texting or even using a wireless phone; it is driver negligence.
The results are in. They can be read all over the internet, and they are seen and heard on the news. But many people have misinterpreted those results.
The following sources produce statistics and quotes you've probably heard before.
1. Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update. December 2008. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
2. Highway Officials: National Ban On Texting While Driving. SeriousAccidents.com (Car Accident Lawyers)
3. Teen Driver Menace: Text-Messaging: Studies Show Texting While Driving Is Epidemic. ParentingTeens.com
4. Teens Admit Text Messaging Most Distracting While Driving. Students Against Destructive Decisions.
The overriding theme is that there are many things which distract drivers from the road, and that one of the most common distractions these days is the use of a cell phone, especially for sending and receiving text messages. (Side note: HB1279 would only ban sending messages, not receiving and/or reading them, while driving.) So, you see, texting isn't really the cause; instead, the main cause is that drivers are paying more attention to something other than driving. Let's brainstorm a moment here.
Possible distractions to drivers:
• Reaching for a moving object inside the vehicle.
• Looking at an object or event outside of the vehicle.
• Reading a book or newspaper.
• Applying makeup.
• Doing or fixing hair.
• Eating.
• Taking a drink (assume non-alcoholic).
• Talking to passengers.
• Dealing with your kids in the back seat (lost toy, fighting, spill, potty accident, sick, etc.)
• Changing a CD, tape, radio station, song, or volume.
• Just listening to music, even if you don't change or adjust anything about it.
• Sexual activity (let's not be naïve, it happens).
And, of course, some other things that can adversely affect a driver's ability to safely operate a motorized vehicle:
• Emotions and state of mind.
• Cough syrup.
• Lack of sleep.
• Body aches and injuries.
• Drunkenness.
• Gender. (OK, just kidding on that one;)
The evidence in all studies to date has demonstrated that a driver whose attention is not focused on driving puts himself at a MUCH higher risk of being in a collision. (Note that I do not call it an "accident". One thing I learned in Driver's Ed is that there are very few accidents; it is almost always somebody's fault.) Whether that driver's attention is diverted by a phone, an iPod, CD player, GPS, or passengers is really irrelevant. No matter what causes that distraction, it is the responsibility of the driver to make sure that his vehicle does not hit anything. Thus, you see that most accidents result from driver negligence—neglecting to fulfill his responsibility to keep his vehicle from hitting something.
3. A Better Approach
Regulating distractions doesn't work. Regulating driving will.
Consider the findings of the attorneys at SeriousAccidents.com (source 2, above).
The percentage of car accidents attributed to dialing a cell phone is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening on a cell phone or bluetooth headset.
Again, the results are in. When cellular phones were just beginning to gain popularity, it became evident they were becoming a distraction to drivers. Many states enacted legislation requiring drivers to use "hands-free" devices if they wanted to use a cell phone while driving. But that did not help. Even Arizona Democratic State Rep. Steve Farley, who was the first legislator in the country to introduce a bill that would ban texting while driving, has noted that "hands-free" legislation has not proven successful.
What are legislators to do? Should they doggedly continue down the list of possible distractions and attempt to regulate each one, hoping that success will be found once they've all been banned? No, certainly not. This would be a waste of tax-payer money, since they'd be wasting time, on our dime, writing laws that are too difficult to enforce, infringe on our rights, and, most importantly, have little positive effect in solving the actual problem!
Listen, folks, I don't know if I've made it clear yet, but I'm not saying people should text whenever they want. And I don't believe that people should drive when they are drunk or high.
I've never been drunk, and thus never driven while drunk, but I've driven while I was way more sleepy than was safe. Studies have shown that driving while sleep-deprived can be as dangerous as, or more than, driving drunk. So why is driving tired not illegal too? Well the easy answer is that it cannot be easily measured such as your BAC can be measured, even though some people are not drunk at .08 while others are drunk well before then.
The laws are tackling the issue the wrong way. We should come up with a better way to handle this.
Let us create a "Distracted Driving Law" that is based on your driving, not what you're doing. Distracted driving tickets could be issued for, among other things:
• Not going at a green light.
• Swerving (which is already a reason to suspect drunk driving).
• Merging into somebody.
In fact, there are already several things in the Indiana Code that are classified as "reckless driving". Let's add to that.
Behavior that is generally indicative of being an impaired driver should be banned rather than each and every single little thing which could possibly contribute to impaired driving. In Indiana, one of the drivers in a collision is assigned fault (which is as it should be, in contrast with Michigan's no-fault policies). An appropriate piece of legislation may impose penalties for being the at-fault driver beyond the current status quo of simply being financially responsible for any damage caused to person or property.
We could do away with the current drunk driving laws, this proposed "Texting While Driving Law", and a flurry of other similar laws, both current and future. It doesn't matter what the heck you are doing in your car if you are able to maintain proper control of its velocity, path, and destination, i.e., speed, direction, where it goes, and where it ends up. But so help you, if you screw up, you're in deep poo-poo.
Legislating the driving itself also allows the law to be flexible to people of various skill levels. Can you barely chew gum and drive in a straight line? Better not chew and drive. Are you a big, burly, bartender who knows he can have four beers in an hour without even getting a buzz? Fine, if you can keep the car on the road and not hit anything; THAT is what is important, not your BAC nor bottle count.
And need I mention that this doesn't infringe on your personal rights? No illegal searches. No need to pull somebody over and give them a hard time on suspicion alone. The LEO can clearly observe if the vehicle is being operated in a reckless manner. This is much more easy to enforce.
Finally, this approach lets us stop writing laws about it! Thirty years ago there were no laws about texting and driving, or even using a phone while driving, because they weren't relevant. But suppose that laws had been written as I have suggested. In that case, the old law would still be relevant today because it was focused on the way a driver operates the motor vehicle on the roadway rather than what the particular distraction of his generation is.
Come on, folks. Don't let your legislature enact another "feel good" law with demonstrably little effect on stemming the real problem. Instead, let us encourage them to use some common sense and write a better law.
Click here to email your Indiana legislators. Tell them you oppose this bill, and all others like it, not because you think texting and driving is safe, but because it is a foolhardy approach to establishing roadway safety.
Further Reading
A Penchant for Controlling Others - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Institute
~ Angry White Boy ~ » Indiana House Bill 1279 – Nanny State Legislation
Do Not Make New Laws – Enforce the Ones We Have (Texas)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
