It seems that legislators in the Texas house have taken time from their busy tax-raising schedule to send HB2893 out of committee.

What is HB2983? First, iIt requires the insurance companies to report all automobile insurance policy purchases, renewals, and cancellations to the state.

Sec. 601.502.  REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The motor vehicle liability insurance compliance program shall require that, on or after the effective date of this subchapter, when an insurance company authorized to write motor vehicle liability insurance in this state or its designated agent issues or renews a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that provides the minimum coverages required by this chapter to a person who is required to maintain insurance under this chapter and who is the holder of a Texas driver’s license or a Texas commercial driver’s license, or terminates or cancels such a policy, the insurance company or its designated agent shall furnish to the department or administering entity the following information:
          (1)  the insurance policy number;
          (2)  the effective date of the policy;
          (3)  the make, model, license plate number, and vehicle identification number of each vehicle covered by the policy; and
          (4)  any other information reasonably required by the department.
     (b)  The required information relating to an insurance policy that is issued or renewed shall be provided to the department or administering entity not later than the third business day after the date of issuance or renewal.
     (c)  The required information relating to an insurance policy that is terminated or canceled shall be provided to the department before the effective date of the termination or cancellation.

But once the state has its grubby paws on the data, they plan to do far more with it than just check vehicles at registration renewal.  The bill would also add RFID tags to inspection stickers, such that these tags could be read by existing toll-tag readers as well as any other readers that our “friends” in Austin decide to set up.

Sec. 601.507.  SPECIAL INSPECTION CERTIFICATES. (a) Commencing not later than January 1, 2006, the department shall issue or contract for the issuance of special inspection certificates to be affixed to motor vehicles that are inspected and found to be in proper and safe condition under Chapter 548.
     (b)  An inspection certificate under this section must contain a tamper-resistant transponder, and at a minimum, be capable of storing:
          (1)  the transponder’s unique identification number; and
          (2)  the make, model, and vehicle identification number of the vehicle to which the certificate is affixed.
     (c)  In addition, the transponder must be compatible with:
          (1)  the automated vehicle registration and certificate of title system established by the Texas Department of Transportation; and
          (2)  interoperability standards established by the Texas Department of Transportation and other entities for use of the system of toll roads and toll facilities in this state.

By the way, the next section of the bill establishes that if a vehicle is spotted via tag reader that doesn’t have current insurance, the system automatically mails a $250 ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Here’s the full text (PDF) for those who may be interested.

The bill calls for “tamper-resistant” transponders.  Would it be tampering to hit it with an EM pulse?  After all, you didn’t actually touch the device.  Of course, the downside is that a strong EM pulse is difficult to generate and would also fry your car’s electronics.

Maybe a clear metal-film layer applied over the glass instead?

An interesting thought just occurred to me.  Under the “sneak and peak” rules created by FISA in 1994, the FBI is allowed to get a FISA warrant under which it has the authority to enter your house, photograph your papers, duplicate your computer hard drive, and never let you know it’s been there.

I wonder how they would accomplish the task of duplicating my hard drives?  My computer systems are a) always powered on, b) protected by screen lock passwords when not in use, c) protected by power-on passwords, and d) require a valid id and password to log on.  Further, the system that stores most of my important data is a Linux system using a RAID-5 array.  I will notice if that system is powered off and tampered with.  Not only would they have to take the system down, they’d have to root it and remove all traces of the shutdown and restart, and then somehow restore my desktop to its original state (which might vary based on whatever I was doing last before I locked it).  At least they’d have to do that if they wanted an exact duplicate of the hard drives.  If they just wanted the data, perhaps they could root it and plug in a USB device (and then remove the evidence from the logs, since Linux logs these connections). 

If I really wanted to be paranoid I suppose I could hook up motion sensitive cameras to my computer and have it upload the pictures to an offsite server somewhere everytime it noticed movement as well as storing them in encrypted form in several hidden locations on several hard drives (just in case they got smart and posed as Verizon techs and disabled my internet connection and phone, which takes out the alarm system as well). 

This makes for an entertaining thought exercise.  Trying to come up with a foolproof way to determine someone with lots of technical knowledge, power, and resources has secretly entered your house.  The cards are stacked against you.

A quick note to police and other public servants.  Unless you’re currently serving in the military, you may not call me a civilian.  If I hear this word out of your mouths, I know immediately that you are not to be trusted.

I saw something on the news this morning that pissed me off to the point where I was yelling obscenities at a Colleyville police officer and an airhead reporter.  It seems that some miscreants are targeting home owners in the Colleyville and Coppell areas for home invasion robberies.

Police in Colleyville and Coppell are warning homeowners to be alert after a string of home invasion robberies.

The departments are investigating four incidents that happened around 10 p.m. Monday night. Authorities believe they are all related.

Police are encouraging residents to lock their doors and be aware of their surroundings. The suspects are armed and searching for easy opportunities, they said.

That’s bad enough, but what got me was that the cops are pushing the typical “give them what they want” crap. 

Police said the robberies were crimes of opportunity and added that only a trained expert should ever try to confront a suspect.

“The bad guy has the advantage,” Hudgins said. “He knows what he’s gonna do, whereas the complainant or the victim doesn’t know what is going to happen next.”

“Just give them what they want. If they’re not gonna hurt you, then you’re that much better off.”

To which I can only say, “Bullshit!”  We all know that simply giving them what they want doesn’t work anymore.  You’re just as likely to get shot after complying as you would if you’d resisted these days. 

Of course, if you’re in condition white, you’re an easy target and it’s too late after the robbers stick a gun in your face.  One of the problems here is that people get a false sense of security and let down their guard at home, especially because Colleyville hasn’t had a home invasion in seven years prior to this string of them.  People need to remember to stay alert (condition yellow) and be prepared.  If they do this, it negates the bad guy’s advantage.

Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed.  This is Texas after all.  We should be getting righteous shooting reports out of Colleyville or Coppell instead of more “trained expert” nonsense!  Anyone who would invade someone’s home at gunpoint deserves whatever they get.

I’ve been researching the issue of police powers and the subject of “lawful orders” and I’m not finding a lot. I did, however, find the statute that gives police (and firemen) authority to tell you to leave a location.


    § 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without legal
privilege or authority, he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
        (1) obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances,
regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or
        (2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises:
            (A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or
            (B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.
    (b) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.
    (c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.


I’ve highlighted the sections that would imply that they can order you to leave an area. From what I can see, it doesn’t directly address being ordered out of your home (I guess the question comes down to the meaning of “gathered in dangerous proximity”). Frankly, in those circumstances, I don’t have too much problem with being asked to leave, provided that I’m given meaningful information. But free citizens don’t blindly follow orders from anyone.

So, those silly, dissent-loving leftist-anarchists have hacked Protest Warrior.  I find it ironic that they scream so much about their right to speak (dissent!) then turn around and try to destroy the rights of others to do the very same thing.  I guess it’s all a matter of who’s doing the speaking (some animals are more equal than others and all that).

They also posted a list of emails stolen from the site to Indymedia.  I had recently signed up as I was interested in attending some of the counterprotests in the area.  I see that my email is on their list.  Now I get to decide whether to kill that email address or wait to see what kind of crap shows up there.  I think for now I’ll wait to see what shows up.  But I feel sorry for people who don’t have the ability to create and destroy email addresses at will.  I suspect that some of these ever-so-tolerant Indymediots will shortly be sending out spam and virus-laden emails to these addresses.

Jeff mentions the situation in England where defending yourself or your family will likely get you a stiffer penalty than the criminal who attacked you.  This naturally could lead to situations where citizens just kill the bastards and hide the bodies.  Why call it in if you know your life is ruined, regardless of justification?

In a similar vein, the same idea when related to certain “protected” wildlife in certain states (*cough* California *cough*) has led to the pithy phrase “shoot, shovel, and shut up.” 

Unfortunately, the British don’t have many guns (or at least the law abiding citizens don’t), so perhaps it will be “stab/bludgeon, shovel,and shut up”, but it’s a logical outgrowth of an intolerable situation in regards to self defense.

The item below and subsequent discussion on The High Road about the police actions in Oskhosh got me to thinking about another, related issue.

Specifically, the police “evacuated” a 6-block area and forced the residents to a shelter for the duration of their search.  What rights does a private citizen have to refuse to leave his home in the face of a police demand to evacuate?

My first thought about it is that in the absence of a specific, immediate threat, I would be reluctant to leave.  I’d ask the officer whether it was a request or an order.  If it’s just a request, I’ll tell him to get lost.  If it’s an order, then I think the law would require me to leave, but I’d insist on locking the house and arming the alarm.  I just don’t trust cops enough anymore to leave things open for them to get in and mess with my stuff.  This incident simply reinforces that.

Update:  This has also brought up something that’s been stewing in the back of my mind for a while now.  The weekly Keller newspaper publishes records of all arrests from the previous week.  Reading through them, the majority are either DWI (no objection there, for the most part) or small drug posession arrests based on a consent search following a simple traffic stop (headlight out, speeding, failure to signal, etc).  It amazes me that people would consent to a search in this circumstance, but I understand that a lot of people a.) don’t know their rights, and b.) are often browbeaten or intimidated into consenting.  Now that I know the Keller cops are search-happy on traffic stops (and I already knew they were like sharks in a small pond when it comes to looking for traffic violations), I’ll be more on guard.  However, asserting your rights can get you arrested if the officer feels like it.  Texas law allows them to arrest you for simple traffic violations if they feel like it.  Given this, I think I need to find a good criminal defense attorney and if not put them on retainer, at least establish a relationship.  Besides, it’s probably stupid of me to have gone this long without doing so.  Partially it’s a matter of procrastination, but there’s also the fact that I haven’t a clue about how to find a good lawyer.  I’ve found a few directories that list attorneys in the area by speciality, but I have no idea how to determine if they’re any good.

After one of their officers was shot last week, it would appear that the police in Oshkosh, WI need a refresher course on the Fourth Amendment.

From the Wisconsin Gun Owners website:

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

  Residents reported returning home from area shelters—where they were herded by police—to find their guns gone.

  Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

  “However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found,” said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. “So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there’s no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic.”

  Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department’s “Guilty-until-proven-innocent” posture towards citizens.

  In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

  According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

  Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

  Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

      “That’s what makes me so mad,” said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). “They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.” [Emphasis Added]

  In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

  “They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on,” the man said on camera.

  An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

  “Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant “Reasonable Suspicion” or “Probable Cause” that she could have committed this heinous act?” asked Graff.

  “Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?” He said.

  In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, “declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…”

 

I think this just shows once again why you should never, ever allow police into your house without a warrant.  Of course, the police may barge in anyway, but if they do at least you still have legal standing to contest their entry.  If you give consent to a search you’ve given up the ability to challenge the search.  The same goes for traffic stops.  I will never, ever give consent to a search of my house or vehicle, even if I haven’t done anything wrong.

Because Wisconsin Gun Owners don’t provide any way to link directly to their news articles I’ve reproduced their entire article in the extended text area of this entry so it will be available in case it scrolls off of their main page.

Oshkosh police say ‘Sorry’ for trampling citizens’ rights in door-to-door gun confiscations.

  Oshkosh, Wis.—In what appears to be an admission of wrong-doing by the Oshkosh Police Department, Fox 11 WLUK (Green Bay) has reported that area resident Terry Wesner was offered an apology by the department.

  Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

  Residents reported returning home from area shelters—where they were herded by police—to find their guns gone.

  Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

  “However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found,” said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. “So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there’s no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic.”

  Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department’s “Guilty-until-proven-innocent” posture towards citizens.

  In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

  According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

  Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

  Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

      “That’s what makes me so mad,” said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). “They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.” [Emphasis Added]

  In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

  “They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on,” the man said on camera.

  An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

  “Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant “Reasonable Suspicion” or “Probable Cause” that she could have committed this heinous act?” asked Graff.

  “Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?” He said.

  In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, “declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…”

  “If officers were acting honorably and respecting property owners’ rights, why not say so? Why not be upfront? Why the secrecy?” Graff said.

  One resident in the neighborhood may have found himself the subject of the investigation simply by refusing to consent to a search (entirely within his rights) according to the news report.

  The Oshkosh Northwestern story quoted one neighbor — who suspected homeowners who exercised their right to refuse consent to the heavy-handed searches, were presumed guilty by police — as saying:

      “. . .[T]hey’ve been downright rude to us. . .You don’t treat so-called civilians this way.” [Emphasis Added]

  The news story goes on to say that Captain Puestohl “. . .declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search.”

  This hysteria-driven Oshkosh neighborhood gun grab could establish a nightmarish precedent for a wide-open abuse of police power to be unleashed upon Badger State gun owners said WGO.

  The silence from other gun rights groups on this issue is deafening.

  “The institutional gun lobby is just as scared as the poor people in that Oshkosh neighborhood,” Graff said. “They might be thinking, ‘If I speak out, will my guns be next?’”

  Wesner, one of the brave gun owners to speak out against the rash of gun confiscations that occurred after the shooting, said police confiscated his guns after entering his home without a search warrant.

  He reported in a Thursday, July 22 television interview with WLUK-FOX 11, “They [the police] are not going to come in my home again [without a warrant].”

  That same report stated that the police “acknowledged a lack of proper procedure [in not obtaining a warrant].” 

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. said the most effective response for gun owners is to join and contribute to the organization’s bold, no-compromise educational crusade. 

The idea of national reciprocity has been on my mind of late for several reasons.  When I got back from my trip there was a fundraising letter from NRA-ILA concerning a national reciprocity bill.  Also, in the big kerfuffle over gay marriage there was a lot of discussion of federalism and the “full faith and credit” clause, which led some people to bring up concealed carry.

It is my understanding that the “full faith and credit” clause does not actually require any state to recognize a marriage license issued by another state if that marriage is contrary to the laws of the first state.  We see the same sort of thing today with concealed carry laws.  This is one of the joys as well as one of the curses of our system.  Each state can do things as it sees fit.  Unfortunately, this leads to a patchwork of conflicting laws which can snare a traveller who is not careful.

As an example, consider my trip to Colorado last week.  Texas does not yet have reciprocity with Colorado, and it’s impossible for New Mexico to have reciprocity with any other state until they fix their concealed carry laws.  However, it turns out that Colorado does have reciprocity with New Hampshire.  And New Hampshire will issue a permit to out-of-state residents if they already have a permit in their home state (it’s a pretty simple process).  That took care of the Colorado carry issue, although it didn’t fix the problem with New Mexico.  Fortunately, New Mexico has a car-carry provision (as does Colorado) and we didn’t spend much time in New Mexico.

I don’t see how any national law could constitutionally impose reciprocity across the country.  It appears to me that it would take a constitutional amendment.  That having been said, I don’t really want the feds messing around with state laws, even if some of the states choose to be buttheads about it (e.x. The People’s Republics of California and Illinois).  Something I think that Congress could do, though, would be to repeal all federal laws that interfere with state carry laws on federal property.  Right now, it is against federal law to carry in the Post Office or in National Parks.  It is also my understanding that on a military base it is up to the base commander to decide whether carry is to be allowed. 

Given all of this, I’d propose a federal law that simply recognized the provisions in each state for carrying firearms.  The federal law would recognize state firearms laws in all federal facilities, except for military bases and federal courts.  On a military base, it would remove from the base commander’s discretion the ability to ban carry by civilians in any area that is commonly open to the public, leaving it to his discretion to make decisions for areas commonly off limits to the general public.  For federal courts, it would only apply to the courtroom and directly-related areas.  Other federal agencies (like FBI/IRS/DEA/BATFE) could not get around the law by locating themselves in a federal court building.  They would have to recognize the carry laws in whatever state they happen to be operating in.

This would make life easier for people who carry, who then don’t have to worry that their legally concealed weapon becomes a 10-year federal felony if they forget about it when going to the Post Office.  It would restore the right to defend oneself at places like Yellowstone and The Grand Canyon.  Finally, it means one doesn’t have to jump through hoops to get a simple form at the IRS office.