Police powers and the law

It is around about now that the truth of what was behind the cancellation of charges against the Urewera 17 is coming to light.

That truth lies in a piece of legislation currently before the House, and being pushed through under urgency.

The legislation has the effect of allowing Police powers they as the law had interpreted them prior to a couple weeks ago; the date of the Supreme Court’s decision that the basis of much of the evidence against the Urewera 17 had been illegally obtained.

My understanding of the general position is this –

First, the Police have been obtaining evidence using covert (hidden) means including hidden video cameras and sound equipment (as distinct from the traditional wire-tap).

Second, the use or even the existence of these methods was not envisaged at the time the present legislation was enacted.

So the interpretation applied by the Police, supported by a number of criminal cases already concluded and appealed (two specific ones have been mentioned), has been that if it is not specifically prohibited then it is legal.

The Supreme Court case – the elephant in the bed – has turned that interpretation on its head. If it is not specifically authorised then it is illegal.

That really does follow White’s (from “The Once and Future King”) ants nest sign changing from “What is not Forbidden is Compulsory” to “What is not Compulsory is Forbidden”.

I have had one instance where my office was used by police for surveillance of a neighbour in some considerable secrecy. That was set up in accordance with a Court Order requiring that the use be provided and specifying the nature of the evidence to be obtained under the Warrant. Seems to me that is exactly the same situation as was followed in the case of the Urewera 17 except for one small but essential fact. In the latter case the consent of the landowner from where the surveillance took place was not sought. Why? For the very simple reason that they were the same people against whom the evidence was being obtained.

Now I can sympathise with the Police in the difficulties this may have caused in their process against the Urewera 17. That sympathy goes no way toward what I see as the centre of my personal objections to what happened.

First up, the police should be required to prove that there is substantial and legally obtained evidence that a crime has been or may be committed. That need not take place before open Court but it does need the Court’s hearing and consent. I do not believe that changes anything that already exists.

Second up, and irrespective of any charges that may subsequently be laid, that process must be revealed to the person(s) being investigated as part of the evidence in Court for resulting charges, or once the police have completed their investigation, or at the latest within a specified time period; I would suggest four years as a long maximum.

Third up, the process is required, essential, to prevent police indulging themselves in “fishing” for evidence against individuals without valid cause.

It comes down to this –

Whatever legislation the Government wishes to implement, governing the rights of Police to investigate and obtain evidence, must at all times be and remain subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

This dates back as far as June 2002 –

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION ON PRELIMINARY PAPER 50: ENTRY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE
I
write further to my letter of 23 May 2002 in which I made a submission on Part
II of the discussion paper. This supplementary submission touches upon Parts III
and IV.
PART III: POLICE POWERS TO ENTER, SEARCH AND SEIZE
…
While I understand that [the Law Commission is] concentrating on search upon arrest I highlight two related issues in this context:· the merit from a privacy
perspective in delaying more intensive searches until the suspect in the
controlled environment of the police station (and I believe the philosophy of
[the United Kingdom Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985] PACE s.32 is
consistent with this); and· if Police Act 1958 s.57A is to be amended, through
repeal of s.57A(5), it may also be timely to review the provision in total to
see whether it needs to be modernised to better protect peoples' rights,
including expectations of privacy, consistent with reasonable law enforcement
needs.

A general warrant?

In paras 30 and 31 [of the Preliminary Paper 50] the case for a general warrant for investigative techniques is raised. One example is given of a real New Zealand case involving 6 months of Police video surveillance into a person's home through a kitchen window. The merit of a warrant process authorising such intrusive surveillance by warrant for the Police is that the risk of the evidence gathered being declared inadmissible is minimised. The merit from a civil rights and privacy perspective is that the Police must initially justify their case to an independent person and, if the surveillance continues for an extended time, the Police will have to return to the judicial officer to maintain the justification. Conditions can be imposed to minimise the impact upon the suspect and other persons. The Commissioner has
formally recommended that consideration should be given to establishing a judicial warrant process in relation to the use of covert video surveillance in the investigation of offences (Privacy Commissioner, Necessary and Desirable: Privacy Act 1993 Review, 1998, para 2.6 and recommendation 22).

Accordingly, the Privacy Commissioner welcomes exploration of the idea.

However, wherever possible the legislature should expressly consider the means of investigation and craft statutory safeguards warranted by the nature of the technology and the intrusiveness of its application. It has done this in the past in relation to search warrants, interception warrants, call data warrants and computer access authorisations. In such crafted legislation the judicial warrant forms part of a
wider scheme of safeguards rather than the sole protection (e.g. in relation to offence provisions, absolute prohibitions on certain practices with standard conditions on certain others, information retention and destruction, record keeping, notification, audit, compensation, public reporting etc).

That analysis is a good and fair analysis of just how I have always seen the handling of the investigation, charging, and judicial fallout from the Urewera 17 case.

He concludes -

Accordingly, any proposal to claw back the protections in s.21 by omitting reference to unreasonable search, and placing the emphasis only on unlawful search, will make the NZBORA even less effective as a partial implementation of the universal human right of privacy. Tinkering with the Bill of Rights is rare.

Perhaps doing so offers the opportunity to consider including a new article modelled upon Article 17.

It seems clear from Scott Optican's review of the case law ("What is a 'search' under s.21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990? An analysis, critique and tripartite approach" 2001 NZ Law Review 239) that a central role of judges in the cases under s.21 is to adequately protect privacy. Investigative conduct which can breach reasonable expectations of privacy is frequently likely to be raised by surveillance activities involving no trespass of the traditional kind. If reasonable expectations of privacy are to be protected at all in this area it is undesirable to simply look at the
question of lawfulness in terms of trespass. To limit the section the manner canvassed in the paper would presumably diminish legal protection of privacy.

That would not be supported by the Privacy Commissioner.

Finally, the discussion paper focuses solely upon the use of s.21 in court proceedings,
particularly in challenging admissibility of evidence. For example, para 37 suggests that the reference to unreasonableness ceased to be useful when the Bill of Rights was rewritten so that the courts could not strike down statutes.

However, the NZBORA is also used as a standard in guiding officials who propose, develop and scrutinise new laws including those laws that empower officials to carry
out searches and surveillance. If the test were simply to be lawfulness the mere enacting of a statute conferring such powers would essentially end the matter. It is also useful that there be scrutiny of the reasonableness of such laws. Although such scrutiny could be undertaken in the absence of the NZBORA, the fact is that one of the NZBORA's major current roles is as a standard for pre-legislative scrutiny of bills.

For me, the difference lies between on one hand the police using private cctv footage to obtain evidence in investigating a crime committed, and on the other the police using the same cctv footage to track and monitor individuals who may not have been involved in the commission of any crime.

As the sun sinks slowly in the west...

... one of the most shameful episodes in NZ criminal justice is quietly coming to an end.

I have no connection with those charged, other than the fact that for two years I lived in a similar community where my father was headmaster at the local school. I was 8 at the time.

That it has taken so long for the Justice system to pull its thumb from its collective arsehole is beyond belief. That it has occurred only 4 months before a General Election only adds to the solid stench of political agendae and unsettled scores.

Firearms charges against most of those arrested in the police raids on alleged military training camps in the Ureweras have been dropped.

But four of the accused, including Tame Iti, will still stand trial on charges of participating in an organised crime group and firearms charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled certain evidence inadmissable at the so-called "terror raid" trial of next year which was set to last for three months.

The groundbreaking decision over-ruled previous judgments from the High Court and Court of Appeal over whether the Crown could use evidence gathered in the covert police operation before the arrests in October 2007.

The Crown has now dropped the Operation Eight prosecution against 13 of the 17 accused, according to a statement just released by the Auckland Crown Solicitor, Simon Moore SC.

Mr Moore said the judgment of the Supreme Court is subject to suppression orders and cannot be reported.

The most immediate question has to be "Why" can this latest step not be reported?

The effect of the delay would be that those accused facing Arms Act charges alone would not be tried for a period of four and a half years from the date of their arrest," said Mr Moore.

"Further, they were remanded in custody for a period of time following their arrest, and they have been on restrictive bail conditions through much of the time since their release.

"Taking these matters into account together with findings made by the Supreme Court about the seriousness of their offending, it is the Crown decision that the continuation of proceedings would not be in the public interest."

You bet it would not, nor will it be, simply because the whole process from the day the AOS stepped onto their bus and drove to Ruatoki has been nothing less than a monumental fuck-up. I will say it. It is so bad that I can not believe for a moment that it was solely the responsibility of the Police. There has to have been another hand. There is only one that could move things in the mysterious way this has progressed.

Politics.

Which raises the next question. Why has the Jonkey been so slow in making it known to the Police and the Justice system that enough is more than enough.

The secrecy has to end. It might be justified to the time that the last remaining charges are settled.

Then the book must be opened.

Given the eternal, unending...

... peregrinations through that most fundamental law of US democracy otherwise known as the the Second Amendment, I recommend this line of antique and up-to-the-second weaponry.

My personal favourite just has to be The Goliathon 83 Infinity Beam Projector

God-given rights again...

TF has, in response to the Court hearing being held in the US (concerning the right to carry arms in Washington DC), put out a fairly long article headed “Without God there can be no God-given rights”. I responded with three very short sentences, which were not intended to offend, and credit to TF he does not seem to have taken offence. But his thoughts, and some of those coming from other comments, do deserve some consideration and debate.

TF, your heading is absolutely correct - without God there can be NO God-given rights. And no, I am not going to debate the existence, or otherwise, of any god but take a purely practical view of the premise.

The initial premise opens further questions, not the least of which is -

Does a non-believer (in that God) have access to those same rights?

If I were Hindi or Buddhist, would I have the right to carry a gun or would God in his wisdom withhold that right because I am not a believer?

This is not intended to be a smart-ass question. It bothers me when I try and consider the "attitude" that the Christian God has to non-believers. It bothers me that those God-given rights might be limited in their availability in the same way as God's redemption of sinners.

Now please, just stay with me here a bit longer because I am at the absolute limits of my ability to debate topics religious.

My mind ticks over from that thought to the next which – to me quite logically is –

If a God-given right – let us say to bear arms – is to be limited to believers, then how would that be communicated to man? Yep, OK, that is a slightly smart-ass question so I will put it this way –

How would the devoutly Christian population of America respond if SCOTUS were to decide (in its wisdom) that the right to bear arms is limited to those people who are certified members of approved churches?

Now just think about that for a moment. Consider the problems that it might solve.

Consider the idea that a Muslim, or an atheist, would not be permitted to carry arms in the US and therefore could be jailed in an instant if he did.

Equally to the point, Obama’s church could be excluded from the list of “approved churches” because of the beliefs of the Pastor.

Now, what might happen if that pronouncement of God's will were to be made by the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury (tho' in his case I suspect that most would accept it as a joke and tune out) or the leadership of the Mormon Church?

And that leads to the next question of substance –

Who should actually decide or interpret God’s intentions?

No, don’t laugh. This is serious here. TF states at length his belief in God’s intentions, existence, and ability to guide the lives of men. It is from that belief that the fundamental premise of his article depends. There are a good number of people who hold the same belief, and like TF hold that belief very sincerely. But equally, there are many people who would argue the Pope as being the only rightful interpreter of God’s intent. At the other end of the scale, I can imagine a very large number of people getting extremely concerned should Obama’s Pastor be responsible for the task.

I don’t want to bog down in the metaphysics or paranormal phenomena that might be involved because the answer really (fundamentally) is quite clear to me at least.

Irrespective of the mechanisms, or the beliefs, involved it is eventually men or a man (and that is generic, please!) who will be the final interpreter, final arbiter of God’s intent. To that extent at least there is no difference between “God-given rights” and “Sharia Law”. To be brutally honest I would despair at the idea of such “rights” depending upon the idea of Papal Infallibility as just one example.

And that, dear friends, is why I started the comment to TF’s article with the words “By choice…”

I rejoice in the fact that I have that freedom to choose.

TF can argue that I would have the same freedom in the US, and I can not deny that. But how long might it be before someone in the US political machinery has the kind of epiphany that leads to a section of the community being excluded from “God-given rights” (on well based religious grounds, of course!)?


The following is – for me at least – quite an incredible rationalization of the fundamental laws of the Judeo/Christian faiths (also God given) with the “interpretation” of God’s will in the matter of gun ownership…

The social contract that Hobbes and Locke advocated so that law could hold sway rather than the law of tooth and nail only works when humanity forgoes the jungle. By rejecting God, men turn to the law of the strong arm and the rule of selfishness and strength.

In any society ruled by the tyranny of strength, there must needs be a factor that levels the playing field so the weak can compete with the strong. Colt made men equal in the jungle. Take away the equalizer and the strong will continue to prey upon the weak.

Enlightened souls tend to believe that all other souls are rooted in morality and ethical behavior. Some otherwise well meaning enlightened souls would have us believe that there is no jungle other than what we create out of our own fears and prejudices.

In other words – and Cold Pizza can debate this if he/she wishes – “law” only works at the sharp end of a gun. I doubt that anyone could argue that the world of Moses and the Pharoahs was a time further from the law of tooth and nail than that of Hobbes and Locke.

Equally, and more to my point, men of today (meant in the same way as cp has written) have never turned away from “the law of the strong arm and the rule of selfishness and strength.” Remember that what cp wrote was in support of the premise that “the right to carry a gun is God-given”. The God-given laws that “Thou shalt not kill, covet thy neighbours property, or his wife, commit adultery, …” and the rest of the 10 Laws that we all in the “enlightened world” are supposed to live by seem to be ignored, or at very least take second place to these "God-given rights".

It is a very long time since the probligo read Hobbes and Locke, and this (like the WITHON I commented upon earlier) is something that I should remedy.

"Enlightened souls tend to believe that all other souls are rooted in morality and ethical behavior." - Thank you from the bottom of my heart, cp, as this certainly was a fundamental in my mind until such time as I started working the 'Net in this form. I have met any number of souls who are not in their own ways rooted in morality and ethical behaviour. Some who masquerade as "experts" in their chosen fields are in fact charlatans and fraudsters with only self-interest and self-promotion at heart. Some who hold dear the beliefs in the four fundamental freedoms - belief, speech, movement and action - are in fact demagogic politicians who apply those freedoms in the form of "only as I say and do". I hasten to add that no one in TF's community - not even cp - comes even close to the two gentlemen I have in mind and with whom I have previously crossed swords.

Virginia Tech

Nothing I say is going to assuage the grief that follows the deaths of 32 young people.

I have nothing to say about gun laws.

It has all been said.

"Murderers are either bad, or sad, or mad." - From (if I recollect right) a senior NZ policeman following the Aramoana shootings.

5...4...3...2...

Child, 11, brings gun to class, is arrested

Called a first at elementary school

By David Abel, Globe Staff March 28, 2007

The .44-caliber pistol was in the boy's backpack, officials said.

When his fifth-grade teacher asked him just before class ended for the day yesterday whether he had a gun, the 11-year-old at John P. Holland Elementary School said yes, authorities said.

Then, he took it out of his blue and gray bag and put it on his desk, while more than 20 students watched, school officials said.

The gun was loaded, police said.

School officials said it was the first time they have found a loaded handgun inside a city elementary school. The discovery shocked parents, some of whom said they would consider removing their children from the Dorchester school.

The boy, whose name was not released, allegedly told other students that he had the weapon. They told their teacher as they waited to be called to their buses shortly before 2:30 p.m., said Jonathan Palumbo, a spokesman for the Boston Public School Department.

"This is very disturbing," Palumbo said. "But we're glad that the students who found out about this had the presence of mind to inform their teacher."

He said the school had not had problems with the student and that he did not threaten anyone.
"There was also no indication that there was any reason why the student had the weapon with him," Palumbo said. "There was no threat of violence."

After the boy took out the gun, the teacher picked it up with a towel and brought it to the principal's office, Palumbo said. They called a school police officer, who had been outside helping students get on their buses. A few minutes later, the teacher, principal, and officer returned to the classroom, where the boy and other students remained, Palumbo said.

They took the boy to the principal's office, where he was arrested on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm on school property, and unlawful possession of ammunition, police said. He is scheduled to be arraigned this morning in the juvenile session of Dorchester District Court.

Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for Boston police, said the boy told investigators he found the gun in a yard. The location is under investigation. "We want to remind youth that if you find a firearm, don't touch it; don't pick it up," Driscoll said. "Instead, alert police or an adult immediately."

Police informed his mother, and he was booked and questioned at the area C-11 police station late yesterday, police said.

This incident follows the report of a 14-year-old student who showed up at Dorchester's John W. McCormack Middle School on Friday with a .38-caliber bullet, two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case said yesterday. They said the student threatened other students' lives and bragged that he had a gun at home. The officials said police later executed a search warrant at the student's home and found no gun, but they found the bullet.

Michelle O'Connell, the principal of Holland Elementary School, declined to comment.

Parents and neighborhood officials were furious.

I make no apology. This leaves me nearly speechless. So I am not even going to start...

I guarantee that there will be people who will try to justify the boy's action, even if he did not have permission to have or to carry the weapon.

And yes, I do realise that the gun would probably have broken both his arms had he tried to fire the thing.

The Joy of ... 3

TF Stern has written a fairly lengthy reply to Part 2 of this. I won't quote in detail here, and my reply that follows is lengthy enough as it stands...
____________________________________________________

There are a number of issues that come out of his piece. None of them pertain particularly to RKBA other than the indirect "defence against a rogue government" justification. He details at some length how he sees his God-given rights have been eroded by government. He gives a number of personal examples that I can relate to the frustration of having to work through.

In that particular vein, the first obvious question is, "How far would a government have to be 'rogue' (in terms of eroding the people's rights) before the well armed populace militia took up arms against it?" It seems that none of the examples he lists are sufficient for a general (or even individual) uprising. Nor am I yet convinced that the existence of that well armed militia is sufficient to prevent a government from passing those laws as Dave Justus has been suggesting.

I have the distinct impression that it would take something akin to the re-introduction of slavery for that to actually occur. Then would occur the question I have been putting along the lines of "take arms against who?"

As it stands, the impression I have of this as a justification of RKBA is rather like saying “I wanna gun. Now I gotta have a reason to have one”.

I hear what TF says about protecting the family and hearth from the bad guys because the police will not arrive until everything is over, and then they might try and find out whodunnit.

In NZ, there are instances where that has happened, and the Courts have generally been fairly generous in the consideration of what is "fair and reasonable" defence. At the same time I have to note that there are probably as many who have been shot (one particular farmer was shot by a person inknown, the police think at a distance of 500m or more), or robbed when absent from their property (having a beer in the pub or shopping with the missus). By far the worst is the "home invasion" crime. You answer the door and someone asks if they can use your phone. Next thing you are hogtied on the floor and being beaten up, your wife is being raped, and the house is being systematically ransacked for credit cards and cash. There might be one or two of these crimes in a year. Total time from answering the door to being incapacitated; perhaps 2 seconds. Or do you answer the door every time with shotgun in hand?
______________________________________________________

I doubt if, under NZ laws, I would be granted a permit to own a gun if I wrote on the application alongside reasons for wanting one, “So that I can take my rightful place in the people’s armed militia to protect my God-given rights from being eroded by corrupt and illegal government”. But then the thought occurs to me – has anyone tried that in the US in recent times? (Note here that it is me being registered, not the gun).
_______________________________________________________________________________

That leads to the second question which, in my mind, is equally obvious. “If your government is so unpopular, why is it still holding power other than because people are still electing them to hold that power?”

This is the direct application of my contention that “the Ballot Box is my most powerful weapon”.

It is also the first weakness in the democratic system it seems. It matters not who is elected, there will always be those who are dissatisfied with the outcome; usually those whose candidates were unsuccessful. To that extent, at least, I have good reason to be dissatisfied with the actions of virtually all of the governments since I qualified to become a voter. I console myself with the knowledge that one can not have everything in life just perfect. If I had of gotten my way every time, there may well have been a lot more people looking to take up arms against the government.
______________________________________________________________________

I have worked some thirtymumble years in a profession which itself (nothing to do with State or governmental requirements) has required me to attend each year a minimum number of “refresher and developmental courses” – annual cost about NZD2000. That requirement was dropped about ten years back for the “kind” of accountant that I am – Cost and Management, and my ticket is/was for “Associate” membership – primarily because there was little if anything that was “developing” in this arm of the profession. My boss on the other hand has a fairly heavy training schedule that has run the past five years and has come out of the recent changes in international agreements on financial reporting (IFRS). I am aware (because I have a cousin who is a GP) that medical practitioners are required to undertake minimum annual training and refresher courses. The value of that is suspect given that most of the courses seem to be promoted by drug companies… is that a governmental or professional requirement? I believe it is professional rather than statutory.

But that leads to the next obvious question – “Would the statutory/government requirement for the maintenance of professional standards be an imposition upon the freedoms of the members of a profession?” I think not.

A person is not required to join that profession (and here is a very big clue to the question I put on the end of “For the Joy of… 2”) but has the choice knowing what are the requirements of membership. TF was not “coerced” to take up work as a locksmith. He chose that line of business. That choice must surely have considered (as did mine to become an accountant) the possible disadvantages.

I believe (there is no NZ statute on locksmiths that I can find) that there is no registration and control of locksmiths in this country. The vast bulk of the key-cutting industry is the little kiosk in the mall or the local hardware store. The more specialised work for electronic car locks and things of that nature would fall into much the same category but more through the vehicle franchise holders.

For the safe-makers and really complex work there are perhaps three companies in Auckland. They live or die on their reputation.

It is a different matter when one starts to impinge upon the “security” industry. There is a national association of the security service industry (at one stage there were three of them) which governs professional standards and acts as a central contact point between the industry and government. The governmental control of security personnel is (as you might imagine) pretty strict given that they are in effect a privately owned and operated set of mini-police forces. They have no greater power to detain or to control than a member of the public. People working in this level of security are required to hold a license. They are required to renew that license every two years, and the requirements include disclosure of any and all criminal convictions, three “good character references”, and public notice of their intention to apply for renewal so that if you or I have good reason to believe an applicant is not of good character then we can object to the issue of a license. Applications are also vetted by the Police.

But then I come back to my last question – “Is it an imposition on a person in the security industry to require him to register every two years?” He enters the work knowing the rules, the rules are applied… There was, I have to admit, a considerable raruraru from the industry when the new law was made by the government. The leading security companies at the time at least knew that the days of the “cowboy industry” (with no regulation at all) had to end. Several instances of security personnel using their position to steal from clients (including the mysterious disappearance of a Chubb cash vehicle with about $600k on board) was sufficient to require gate closures before the horses got too far down the road and the industry knew that was the case.
___________________________________________________________________

To close, there are points where I can agree with TF's sentiment. There is a row going on at the moment with the city council wanting to control advertising signs and hoardings. It is an interesting debate of “God-given right” to advertise a business on one hand, and the aesthetics of a business or shopping centre on the other. While I might side with the "right to advertise argument", I just know that there are people who will abuse the privilege of being able to advertise. They are the ones who erect the biggest sign, out of all proportion to the need, "just because they can...".
___________________________________________________________________

Final note, regarding employer control over an employee when not on duty…

I must look back, because I think I made mention of this in my own blog. There was an instance in the last year or three of a rural sole-charge policeman who was at a party, had had a few, when reports came through of a fatal car accident about 10km up the road. The emergency services (volunteer fire, volunteer ambulance) left immediately. Then the policeman realised that he had one of the vital life-saving pieces of equipment in his car and that he was the only person in town trained in its use. He drove to the accident, did his duty (remember that he was off duty at the time) when the boys on duty turned up from town about 30 mins later. One of the first things they did was to breathalyse the policeman and he was over the legal limit. He was charged and put through the DIC processes. When it came to Court, the Judge expressed great sympathy with the policeman’s position (described it as totally untenable and the policeman as a hero) and issued an orbiter dicta that the incident should in no way affect the guy’s employment. There was considerable public debate about “unfair special treatment” but I know who I side with… He kept his job.
__________________________________________________________________

I hope that it is noted by the idle reader of these comments that I have at no point argued against TF’s position. I might disagree with him, in some instances quite considerably, but it is fair to point up difference without saying “this is right, that is wrong”. I think that the most fascinating part of all is that the “God-given” nation seems to be taking the freedoms from its people; the secular nation in which I live is well regulated (and in some instances well over-regulated) but in general there is little to which I have any objection other than good-intentioned Greenies wanting to change the law on smacking kids (and I am sitting firmly on the fence on THAT one).

The Joy of ...

Well it used to be "Sex" some years back, but I guess that things change.

Apparently there was a SCOTUS decision in the past week that held some significance to the US 2nd AMendment supporters and their ilk. I am not writing about that.

One of the blogs I came across had this photo as its header...












I won't identify the blog (I enjoy going there from time to time) but they sure as hell need to remember a couple things.

Like, first, I presume these are the people who have RKBA. They are the "responsible gun owners" of America.

Now, take a look at that photo again.

Quite apart from the fact that Dad and son are having a great time with dad's gun. What JOY on dad's face, what pride. Does he realise that son's left hand has at least one finger and likely two inside the trigger guard? Which side is the safety on? Not being a pistol guy I don't know. Is it on the left? Is it still on? Is that damned thing LOADED?

And is mum reaching out to smack his hand away from the pistol? Or to pat her darling son on the head?

America, these are the kind of people who have the right to keep and bear arms.