Now one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.
James Otis, 1761
James Otis, Jr. (1755)
In February, 1761, in a Boston courtroom, what should have been a fairly dry, administrative procedure became the foundation of one of Americans’ most prized rights. This foundation was laid by one of the attorneys present, James Otis, Jr., and memorialized by John Adams, the future second president of the United States. The issue which prompted the case was a suit brought against Writs of Assistance – a form of general search warrant usually applied in customs cases.
“Authorized and Enabled”: General Search Warrants
The first recorded instance of the English state authorizing a form of general search can be dated to 1335. In what has become a depressingly familiar behavior to those of us living in the twenty-first century, Parliament outsourced its power by requiring innkeepers in the country’s ports to search their guests for imported foreign money. Although this power was not extensively used in subsequent centuries, it did not go away.
More than 200 years later, the English crown created a further avenue for general search warrants, again outsourcing the power of the state. In 1557, Queen Mary granted a monopoly to the Stationer’s Company (a trade association) over the publishing industry in England. Part of the grant authorized the Company to,
make search wherever it shall please them in any place, shop, house, chamber, or any building of any printer, binder, or bookseller whatever within our kingdom of England or the dominions of same for any books or things printed, or to be printed, and to seize, take, hold, burn … all and several those books and things which are or shall be printed contrary to the form of any statute, act, or proclamation made or to be made.
In subsequent decades, similar powers were granted to other monopoly companies, to various courts, and to the infamous Star Chamber. The use of general search warrants ebbed and flowed, but, by the first half of the eighteenth century, they were quite common. Although more intrusive than we would expect of modern search warrants, they were not quite as odious as we might imagine. They could only be issued in reaction to the commission of a crime. The warrants allowed officers of the king to enter a person’s property, to search all rooms, storage areas, etc. and seize all their writings. But, they did not allow for ongoing searches of the same premises in subsequent days nor did they allow for the property of associates to be searched.
“No Doors in General Can Be Broken Open to Execute Any Civil Process”
The good burghers of Britain were not supine in the face of general search warrants. Pushback came fairly on – and not just from those out of power. William III advocated repeal of the so-called “hearth tax”—because he considered the searches associated with it to be too extensive. In 1733, parliament refused to enact a wine and tobacco tax because of the search provisions incorporated therein.
More important, in the long run, were a number of legal scholars who wrote against the idea of open-ended searches. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Edward Coke wrote, “One or more Justices of Peace cannot make a Warrant upon a bare surmise to break [into] any mans house to search for a felon, or for stolen goods for they…have no such authority granted unto them…” Coke argued that only an indictment was sufficient grounds for a search warrant. In the early eighteenth century, Sir Matthew Hale argued that warrants to search for stolen goods could only be granted on the oath of a person with knowledge of the location of stolen goods. Furthermore, declared Hale, “a general warrant to search in all suspected places is not good, but only to search in such particular places” identified in the oath.
The most widely read manual for use by Justices of the Peace (the lynchpins of local justice in Britain and its colonies) cited a number of legal scholars in declaring that, “a general search warrant to search in all suspected places, is not good.” William Blackstone addressed search warrants in his monumental Commentaries. Although first published in 1765, Blackstone had been preparing them for decades and they reflected a general understanding of English common law. Blackstone declared that:
the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with impunity… For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process.
“Every one With this Writ may be a Tyrant”
Despite these challenges, governments in both Britain and its colonies continued to issue general search warrants. In the first half of the eighteenth century, Massachusetts had quite happily issued general warrants to British impressment gangs who used them to invade private homes and taverns to seize able-bodied men for the navy. Even more hostility developed in the colony over a series of new excise laws—and their attendant search provisions—promulgated in the 1750s.
Customs and excise laws had first emerged in the seventeenth century, reflecting the increase in England’s commercial activities. In 1662, Parliament issued a law designed for “preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in His Majesties Customes.” Article III of the act declared:
And be it hereby alsoe enacted That the said person or persons which are or shall be appointed for managing the Customes and Officers of His Majesties Customes and theire Deputies are hereby authorized and enabled to goe and enter aboard any Ship or Vessel as wel Ships of War as Merchant Ships and from thence to bring on shoar all Goods prohibited or uncustomed except Jewels.
Furthermore, Article XXX of the same act enjoined essentially all legal officers of the crown to assist customs officers if necessary. It was this latter proviso which gave these general search warrants for smuggled goods the name by which they became known in American history: Writs of Assistance.
From a purely bureaucratic point of view, general search warrants designed to catch smuggling made a great deal of sense. In the time it would take for customs agents to figure out which ship or warehouse held illegal goods, then have a specific warrant sworn out, the goods would be long gone. Nonetheless, it is clear that general search warrants associated with customs laws were far more intrusive than those associated with other criminal enquiries.
Excise and customs laws were fairly common in the colonies. In 1754, the Massachusetts Legislature passed an excise law which allowed virtually unlimited interrogation of subjects in order to determine whether the correct excise tax had been paid. Following a torrent of literary opposition, a 1756 law required someone to swear on oath that they knew of an infringement of the law and that the searches be conducted in daylight. Nonetheless, anger over the excise laws were exacerbated when the governor began issuing writs of assistance for the enforcement of the excise acts.
State action against smuggling was ramped up in 1760, in the midst of the French and Indian War. British Prime Minister William Pitt issued instructions to colonial officials to bring an end to colonial trade with the French. Pitt ordered the officials to “take every Step, authorized by Law, to bring all such heinous Offenders to the most exemplary and condign punishment.”
The first petition for a Writ of Assistance was submitted in the Massachusetts Superior Court in November, 1760. There is evidence for increasing unease among legal offices in the colony over the validity of general search warrants. Chief Justice Stephen Sewell—who had died in September—had harbored doubts, and his doubts had gained sympathy among other members of the court. There had also been a brief public flurry of opposition to general warrants, led by London Magazine which had published an article asserting that writs of assistance from the treasury required some kind of sworn oath identifying a specific location for contraband. Within this context, a group of merchants hired James Otis, Jr. to argue against the issuance of the writs, with the hearing scheduled for February 1761.
In the three months between the filing of the petition and the case itself, there was a degree of turmoil in Massachusetts’s political-judicial climate. First, Sewell’s replacement had to be appointed. The role was eventually given to Thomas Hutchinson. There was almost certainly some personal animosity between Hutchinson, Governor Francis Bernard, and Otis although the full reasons and role which it played in the crisis have never been clear. Then, after Hutchinson’s appointment, but before he actually sat on the bench, word reached Boston that George II had died. Under British law, all writs of assistance were due to expire in April, 1761 (six months after the death of the monarch).
Faced with this, the Surveyor-General of the Customs, Thomas Lechmere, applied to the court to have Writs of Assistance granted to customs officers “as usual.” The hearing opened with Jeremiah Gridley—probably the most distinguished attorney in Boston and the mentor of both James Otis and John Adams—representing the crown. Gridley argued that the writs should be issued as there was ample historical precedence for their legality. The second person to speak was Oxenbridge Thacher who most likely played the role of local legal expert, briefing the court on the history of the issues in question. Thacher argued that, in fact, there was no precedent for general search warrants (exactly how he came to this conclusion is unknown since there is little doubt that Gridley was correct about their use in the past). Thacher also argued that the Massachusetts court did not have jurisdiction since the customs officers, once empowered, were answerable only to the Exchequer Court in London.
Otis followed Thacher. According to John Adams, Otis spoke for somewhere between four and five hours. He began with arguments from legal history and from precedent. Otis declared Writs of Assistance “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.” As proof of this Otis claimed that “Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner also may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm.” For Otis, this contradicted one of the foundations of English liberty, “the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.”
All of this was fairly daring. Aggressive, but not revolutionary. But then Otis moved on to make the arguments that, although not determinative in the case at hand, had profound effects moving forward. The English constitution, declared Otis, spoke against the writs. Even had the law been found in law books, “it would have been illegal. All precedents are under the control of the principles of law… No Acts of Parliament can establish such a writ; though it should be made in the very words of the petition, it would be void. An act against the constitution is void.” This was one of the first, if not the first, times that a real life legal argument had specifically challenged the constitutionality of a law.
In the end the court punted. Hutchinson, probably the only member of the bench in favor of the writs, declared that it was unclear what was taking place in England (because of the interregnum). For this reason, the court deferred making a decision. The next case on search warrants would not be held in Massachusetts until November, 1763. By then it was clear that the Court of Exchequer, under George III, was issuing Writs of Assistance with frequency, so Massachusetts followed suit.
James Otis, Jr., tragically, spent much of his later life suffering from mental illness. Although embracing the patriot cause, his erratic behavior was noted in the 1760s. His condition worsened after 1769 when he was hit in the head by a tax collector’s cudgel. He mostly withdrew form public life after this and died in 1783, aged 58, after being struck by lightning.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
The defense of private property was at the core of the American Revolution. And it was all private property, not just that belonging to a handful of wealthy merchants. It has become somewhat fashionable to suggest that the main supporters of the American Revolution were a handful of wealthy merchants and landowners. Although such men were certainly important, this argument comes nowhere close to the whole truth. To illustrate the importance of property to men from other walks of life, let us turn to Concord, Massachusetts in 1775 as the British troops conducted house-to-house, warrantless, searches for weapons. The militia companies were standing ready just outside town when they saw fires, started by British carelessness, begin to burn in the town. Members of the militia, not the officers, “resolved to march into the middle of the town to defend their homes or die in the attempt.” And so the militia companies set off, the beginning of their march described in one of the most poignant paragraphs I’ve read in the hundreds of history books I’ve consumed:
Isaac Davis’s Acton company was in the front line, followed by the Minutemen units of David Brown and Captain Miles. As they marched, David Brown, along with Purchase [Brown], passed right by his own house…In that remarkably warm spring, the grain already stood green in his fields. And the apple trees were beginning to blossom. All that Brown defended lay about him: the British were trespassing on his home. Every single one of the Minutemen could have said the same.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution enshrines the right of the individual against state trespass on his property. And that Amendment can be traced to Otis’s argument in Massachusetts in 1761. Otis’s legacy survived mainly because of John Adams. Although Adams did not record proceedings word for word, he apparently kept some kind of short-hand record of the trial which enabled him to reconstruct much of it for later audiences. In his most famous statement on the trial, Adams declared that, during Otis’s argument, “then and there the child Independence was born.”
Adams enshrined this in the Fourteenth Article of the 1780 Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. It is the most particularized right in the document and was authored by Adams:
Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order…to make search in suspected places, to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest or seizure and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws
When the US Constitution was published in 1788, a great deal of opposition centered around demands for a Bill of Rights (BoR). The need for a provision on search and seizure was often at the forefront of such demands. Historians have little doubt that, as Madison drafted the Fourth Amendment, he drew heavily from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. But Madison went one step further, eschewing the weaker construction “ought” for the much stronger “shall not.”
The influence of the Fourth Amendment was felt even before the BoR was ratified. At the time (1789) that Madison brought his recommendation to Congress to debate the BoR, Congress had recently passed a customs bill which essentially authorized general search warrants for ships and specific search warrants for warehouses. And, even the specific search warrants could be issued based on suspicions of a tax collector rather than on the independent judgment of the judiciary. But, in 1791 when Congress crafted a new customs bill, they did so with an eye to the soon to be ratified Fourth Amendment. The 1791 bill required a magistrate to determine whether a warrant should be issued. The magistrate was to base his decision on a sworn statement by a collections officer who was to identify the specific location of the contraband and the evidence he had for its presence.
The Fourth Amendment, drafted by Madison, drawing on Adams’s specific language, had arrived. More than thirty years after he’d presented his arguments, James Otis had finally won his case.
References
1. Available Online
Akhil Reed Amar, “The Fourth Amendment, Boston, and the Writs of Assistance,” Yale Law School, Legal Scholarship Repository (Amar take a contrary position on most aspects of the history of the Fourth Amendment. His arguments are rigorous but, as someone who is not a legal scholar, I am persuaded by the interpretations of his rhetorical opponents. RN).
James M. Farrell, “The Child Independence Is Born: James Otis and the Writs of Assistance,” University of New Hampshire, Scholars Repository
Richard B. Morris, “Then and There the Child Independence Was Born,” American Heritage, Vol. 13, No. 2 (February, 1962).
James Otis’s speech summarized, National Humanities Institute
David Snyder “The NSA’s General Warrants,” Electronic Frontier Foundation (pdf)
2. Subscription Services
James M. Farrell, “The Writs of Assistance and Public Memory: John Adams and the Legacy of James Otis,” New England Quarterly, Volume 79, No. 4
Andrew J. Gildea & David J. Weiler, “Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,” American Criminal Law Review, Volume 26, No. 4
Leonard W. Levy, “Origins of the Fourth Amendment,” Political Science Quarterly, Volume 114, No. 1
Jeanne N. Lobelson, “The Warrant Clause,” American Criminal Law Review Volume 26, No. 4
David A. Sklansky, “The Fourth Amendment and the Common Law,” Columbia Law Review, Volume 100, No. 7
David E. Steinberg, “The Uses and Misuses of Fourth Amendment History,” Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 10, No. 3
Silas J. Wasserstrom, “Fourth Amendment’s Two Clauses,” American Criminal Law Review Volume 26, No. 4
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
That was back then. These are different times. We have assault property these days
Well duh. It says “unreasonable searches” and everyone knows that all searches are reasonable because of the high powered drugs and assault rifles and ghost guns and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov
Every person involved in the creation and participation of these should be tarred and feathered. I don’t mean that metaphorically.
how much does a bucket of tar go for? Also I assume most pillows no longer have feathers.
I only use down pillows. Not always easy to find.
At least when you find them they are inexpensive
“That was back then. These are different times.”
Woodchipper?
you want to automate good chopping jobs?
I hate spellcheck too.
how much does a bucket of tar go for?
Looks like $40 for just under 5 gallons.
Access Denied
You don’t have permission to access “http://www.homedepot.com/p/Henry-Henry-107-Asphalt-Emulsion-Sealer-and-Dampproofer-Roof-Coating-4-75-Gallon-HE107571/100079159” on this server.
Reference #18.edb9c451.1590510108.6dae0a4
I blame the English.
Why would you not be able to access a Home Depot site?
GDPR?
I don’t know what GDPR is
I was guessing some kind of economic protectionism?
Be content to know it is for our own good.
Successor to the GDR.
“Why would you not be able to access a Home Depot site?”
Home Depot is anti-vampire.
Just as long as the tar is hot and sticky, the feathers could be replaced with a variety of Amazon packing materials.
Just throw live geese on them.
I figure use a dunking tank, only filled with hot tar instead of water.
*participation IN, not of. Geez. It is beginning to look like starting to drink before 9am dulls the mind.
Why do you hate America?
America is the worst country, except for all the others.
bad food?
Says the man who’s never even been here to try the food.
the state you live in has food called garbage plate
And?
It’s just a name, none of the food came from the garbage.
that’s what you people always say
It’s tasty, you should try it.
What do you mean, “you people”?
What do you mean, “you people”?
You know . . . morons.
Ever had ropa vieja?
I would never!!
Had it in Cuba about seven years ago. It was good, but I suspect a pale imitation of what the Cubanos can do with it in Miami, ferinstance.
It also has steamed hams.
If not for a few places, Louisiana being one of them, I would agree with you Pie
On another site, I once saw a LAian claim, “No one north of I-10 can cook worth a fuck.”
It amuses me for some reason.
As a native Floridian who has been watching Our Northern Friends (everyone residing North of Ocala) overcook seafood for the last half century, I’m quite tempted to agree. However, the Italian food in NY and the Portuguese food in NJ would prevent it.
I think they were excluding south of I-10 in other states too.
Such provincialism is only to the detriment of the people who hold it.
I have found good food in all corners.
I have found good food in all corners.
#metoo
I’ve also had shitty and overpriced meals in almost every country I’ve been to.
Easy pal. First off, while England is still a thing no other country has truly bad food when compared to the world’s gastronomic traditions. Secondly, there isn’t enough time in the day to give all the best counterexamples, but on the strength of the gamut of smoked meats that come out of American culinary cultures alone your premise falls to pieces.
We’ve harvested all the best elements of the world’s culinary traditions and made many improvements of our own.
Bingo. This guy gets it.
“…no other country has truly bad food …”
I see you haven’t been to half of the countries in Africa
Or Ohio. Or Kansas….well come to think of it about half of the states in the US. If you do accidentally find good food in those places it means you are in a place with a furriner in the kitchen.
If you do accidentally find good food in those places it means you are in a place with a furriner in the kitchen.
Sounds American to me.
I mean, tater tots are a black mark for sure, but have you seen the things that the English do to beef? And they claim to love the stuff!
Also, a good friend of mine went lived in England in the 90s as a military brat and recalls with horror the first time he ordered a hamburger from a McDonald’s. It was literally a ham burger. Like pressed, cooked ham in a patty shape.
Sorry, what was that? We don’t all put cinnamon in our chili.
Cinnamon == Not Chili.
. . . a furriner in the kitchen.
Hey, don’t knock it — some of the best French cuisine I’ve had on this continent has come from a kitchen where the chef was Mexican.
Kansas has some of the best BBQ on the planet, and while Ohio may be best known for people shuffling over to THE Olive Garden for dinner, I’ve had some fine dinners in that state. There are actual restaurants that aren’t part of a chain that make great food.
“..England is still a thing no other country has truly bad food when compared to the world’s gastronomic traditions.”
The Philippines sits quietly, hoping to not be noticed, slowly leaning into the shadows…
I was once a dinner guest at a Nigerian’s house. I have no idea what that was…some kind of stew with what I suspect was bush meat…but the only people that ate it were the Nigerian and his wife. Everyone else faked it because we all liked the guy and didn’t want to insult him.
My date excused herself and went to the restroom so no one would see her spit her first bite out and flush it.
An ex took me to a Filipino restaurant once. Holy salt, Batman! Just dreadful all around.
Fine by me. I’ll take some more adobo chicken and pancit.
Balut.
*pukes
Mmmmmmmm smoked meats.
BTW where’s all the Romanian restaurants in other countries?
You forgot about the woodchippers.
Speaking of Amendments,
Cry more, pussies.
you want to ehm trigger the libs?
Go to your room now, young man!
There will be no pun on my watch!
Way to drop the hammer on half-cocked gun puns.
He can’t ramrod his anti-pun sensibilites into our threads.
You would think he’d consider the optics.
The optics include being in Swiss’s crosshairs, though.
I, for one, will not be muzzled.
You tell him HM! Give ’em both barrels!
Trying to think of one to slip into the breech…
I knew this was going to happen.
Your foresight is right on target.
I’ll be your co-witness to that observation.
He fired the first shot.
High caliber predicting, that is.
Maybe you should have considered coming up with the good puns yourself.
As I recall there were objections in Imperial Japan to physically invading the US because “…there is a rifle behind every blade of grass…”
Hey China, that is truer today than it was then. Suck it.
To be fair, the difference is that Japan didn’t have a population larger than the amount of bullets present in the US.
The first wave of 100,000,000 screaming Chinese is just bullet fodder.
This is why we need to plan for a defense in depth. We need to rig the entirety of California, Oregon and Washington with Explosives and mines.
Reminding me of how Leningrad was defended – by Soviets with Russian machine guns behind them and German machine guns in front of them.
Japan didn’t have a population larger than the amount of bullets present in the US.
Neither does China. Several billion rounds are sold in the US every year.
A guy got busted a few years ago here for running a meth lab. The cops found 17,000 rounds of ammo in his house. That is just one guy.
I thought “17,000? Piker”.
Then my damned canoe washed up sideways against a cypress tree and flipped. Dammit.
Related
https://youtu.be/yIMH50X0F-4
The first wave of 100,000,000 screaming Chinese is just bullet fodder.
That’s why you should use battlefield tac nukes on the first wave. It’s kinda tedious mowin’ ’em all down with tens of thousands of SAWs.
Of course, the notion that China could possibly transport enough Red Army soldiers to the US to survive a holiday weekend in Oakland, much less conquer the whole country, is laughable.
The converse is also true. Something something land war in Asia something something.
If the Soviets could do it back in the 80’s….
Only with the help of the Cubans
That’s true.
I’m also disappointed that no one seemed to have picked up on the original oblique Red Dawn reference.
In the film it was “600,000,000 screaming Chinamen.” I assume they’d come in waves.
And how exactly are 100,000,000 screaming Chinese going to get here without being blown to bits in transit?
By sneaking across the southern border.
Duh!
Bullshit. There are more guns out there, but the fact is that they are more highly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals.
I would like to see an argument brought against “may issue” states on the basis that the arbitrary nature of the decision behind granting a permit is a violation of the 14th under the equal protection clause. Hell, I’d argue that most gun laws are violations of the 14th in addition to the 2nd.
Most? I say all.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;…”
The right to arm yourself is unrestricted unless you have been charged and convicted of a crime and I would say even then only of violent crime.
*sigh* Go ahead, laugh.
Shit, if this lockdown has taught me nothing else it’s taught me how flimsy the protections offered by the Constitution really are and how few people in government give two shits about their responsibility to uphold them. It’s pretty much just authoritarians to one degree or another doing whatever the hell they want and can get away with.
I’d argue that even convicts have a right to self defense, even if the means should be limited. And released convicts who have served their sentence should be fully rehabilitated.
I mean… when you only have 9 people, getting 4 to agree to hear something is still just under 50%. But i guess you have to pad out that word count.
As assault-style weapons are increasingly used in American mass shootings, state lawmakers struggle with potential solutions to the nation’s endemic gun violence problem. Some of these laws have been brought to the courts.
Except rifles of all types are almost never used in crime. And a few thousand murders by firearm hardly constitutes an “endemic gun-violence” problem in a country of 300+ million people.
That doesn’t matter. Knives, forks, hammers are all used in crimes too.
“Knives, forks”
Obesity in young women is a crime against humanity, Knives and forks are the weapons of choice. These weapons of m(ass) destruction
should be outlawed.
Who uses knives and forks to eat McDonalds combo meals and potato chips?
Except rifles of all types are almost never used in crime. And a few thousand murders by firearm hardly constitutes an “endemic gun-violence” problem in a country of 300+ million people.
Um, how else are we going to be able to leverage the corona pandemic to take away other rights we see as icky.
What if they just pretend a dog told them there was evidence there? Doesn’t that invalidate all of these protections?
But what we can discern from this fine post is that the fight for liberty, through history, was an ever ongoing and oft losing battle. There was no mythical golden age in the past
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction” – That dude that played in a movie with a monkey
that’s nazi talk. True Freedom can only be found in socialism.
True. The distinction I would draw is that Otis was seeking to establish a right that had really only existed in theory. Today there are a handful of people seeking to retain rights in the face of a majority which seems intent on giving them away without a fight.
Governor Whitmer Orders Citizens To Barbecue Indoors
To Save Time, The Babylon Bee Will Now Just Republish Everything Biden Says Verbatim
that 2nd one got me giggling like a fool/.
They keep getting better. Today – “Biden Covers Body In Tattoos To Constantly Remind Himself Who He Is And What He’s Doing”
I know you aren’t maintaining the argument, just displaying the argument used. This form of argument though is one that i actually viscerally reject. I’ve seen it in lots of places. We have X law that we agree is good. But enforcing it is too hard, so we need to trample rights in order to enforce it because it is a good law. It is an “Ends Justify Means” argument, just made in a long form. The state legislature ran up against it this year, when they made handling a phone a primary offense for which a person can be pulled over in the State. Why? because it was already an offense, but it was too hard to prove that someone was being distracted by it, so they broadened the law to make merely touching a phone an illegal act.
they broadened the law to make merely touching a phone an illegal act.
I use my phone’s map/navigation feature. I very, very rarely touch it while in motion, but will do so when stopped at a sign or a light.
And you will get a ticket in my state if an agent of the state sees you do it.
*adjusts radio and AC then reaches around to smack the kid in the back seat*
I agree with this. And, it seems to me, that there are sufficient “exigent circumstances” arguments that could persuade a court.
Also: Great Article, well researched and well written!
My wife is generally a pretty good Progressive but she repeatedly loses her shit over the cell phone thing, ironically for the very reason you mention. As she sees it, she could be distracted by a baby crying, or an unusual bird flying overhead, or a car backfiring, or any number of things. She is ultimately responsible for maintaining control of the vehicle, and if she does so successfully, no harm has been caused. Whether or not she’s using a phone shouldn’t matter so long as she’s driving safely.
And then she brings up the fact that patrol cars have fucking laptops sitting on the center console. I honestly don’t understand how she isn’t an anarchist yet.
I say the same thing about alcohol.
I’d pose that there is a difference between distracted, implying that you are able to overcome the distraction, and incapacitation, which means you incapable of being in a fit mental state.
To go further, there’s many levels of distraction and a varied ability to still maintain control of your vehicle despite them. Some people will crash if simply trying to change the station on the radio, others are fine after a few beers. That’s why actual harm is the only way to decide.
Agreed. I sometimes space out thinking about problems or writing or whatever and depend on my internal GPS and muscle memory to get me where I’m going. I will be the first to admit that’s not good.
My daughter’s glasses rx is not up to snuff. We’re teaching her to drive in a parking lot, but she doesn’t go out on the road until we’ve got her a good rx, and we can’t do that because the ophthalmology dept at Children’s Mercy is not open.
[Growls in sympathetic anger] My GP thinks my eyesight problems may be caused by my blood pressure, so he ordered an eye appt. (same facility, large family health center). They shut down the eye and dental wings for Quarantinocolypse the day before my appointment.
DENTIST!
Yes, that, too. Both kids and I need dentistry but they weren’t open wah wah wah like a baby.
You and I can growl together.
I’d argue that there’s no real distinction there, especially when someone is arguing no harm no foul. You could theoretically put your phone down and stop being distracted, but it changes nothing about the fact that you’re still on the phone and distracted for some period of time in which you’re just as capable of causing an accident as a drunk who is theoretically impaired but still obeying all the rules.
Now do drunk driving. If you’re in an accident that’s caused by someone else, and the person that caused it dies, if they prove you were drunk you get convicted of murder.
If you’re just stupid and cause an accident where someone else dies, all’s forgiven.
There is mens rea difference in those two situations. And that used to be important.
Are you saying that having some drinks equals the mens rea to get into an accident?
Mens rea?
*laughs*
Yeah, that’s only for when Someone Who Matters gets caught red-handed.
In what jurisdiction?!
The once great state of California.
Murder? Citation needed.
It’s called the “Watson Rule” If you’ve been previously made aware that dui can kill and you still dui, They purport that you deliberately took a life with malice aforethought by disregarding the lessons learned in dui school.
It’s part of CA p.c. 187
Using that rationale, there is no such thing as manslaughter. Everything can kill.
While I’ve seen a few cases where it was used against the victim of a crash because he had prior dui’s and was drunk when he was hit, theoretically it is for people who cause accidents. It slides right by anyway. If a guy is a serial drunk driver and he gets hit during a fatal accident, he is very likely to get this charge regardless of his fault or lack of. Juries see “DUI” and “FATAL” and convict no matter what.
I honestly don’t understand how she isn’t an anarchist yet.
She’s frightened of where the logic will take her.
“…illegal goods…”
I think I see the root of the problem
Possession is 9/10th of the people screwed over by the law.
Nice article, Raven. Appreciate the work that went into it and the references at the end.
Before law school ruined my brain,
Nice article, Raven. Appreciate the work that went into it and the references at the end.
Before law school ruined my brain,
So nice, he said it twice.
He just said what law school did to his brain.
*runs away from Ozy*
Damn squirrels – anyway, I was going to say that before law school I had always read the 4th Amendment to be a fairly strong bulwark against the government booting in doors. By the time I left I had learned that the 4th Amendment was riddled with holes that government could march through. Including the word “unreasonable” in there was a mack truck of a loophole for govt agents, attorneys, and judges. It needs to be re-done and made absolute.
the 4th Amendment was riddled with holes – I blame lawyers myself
The law is too important to leave up to lawyers.
I think that’s the most perfect double-post ever.
I agree.
I agree.
Nice article, Raven. Appreciate the work that went into it and the references at the end.
Before law school ruined my brain,
Good stuff, Raven.
Depressing, when you think about how the protections written into various founding documents have been cast aside, though.
Hey RC – something totally off-topic I thought of this weekend, based really on your geographical background (NM and AZ): Have you done any thinking about the Fenn Treasure?
I went boots-on-the-ground in northern NM in the Springs of 2018 and 2019, and then sorta took a mental rest for the last year. Given it any thought?
No, I haven’t.
At Vermejo, where we fish every spring, there is a rock with some cryptic markings on it in the middle of nowhere. Definitely not Indian, it was supposedly left by a Spanish treasure-hunting expedition on its way back with a load of gold (ore?) that got jumped by Indians. The story is that it is the encoded directions to where they buried the treasure before trying to escape. I don’t recall the details (and didn’t have my phone to take a picture), but its a good story, especially when told by the no-kidding cowboy who passed it on.
The rock is on the edge of a meadow, at the base of a ridge. There’s any number of side valleys leading into the valley where the rock is that would be very plausible places to hide a load of gold. The Spanish expedition was supposedly heading south, so I’d start on the side valleys to the north if I was looking for it. Of course, Vermejo (and I expect NM and probably the feds) would never let me keep anything I found. If they knew about it, anyway.
Thx. Was just curious. I’d been into Armchair Treasure Hunting for 15-20 years on and off. Studied Fenn when it first published, but not seriously until 2017. Whole family did a 3-day search of my target area in each year, and then turned the rest of the week into a broader NM vacation (El Malpais, Santa Fe, Bandelier, Jemez, etc.)
That sounds like a fun thing to do on vacation.
Watch out. Gold fever is a real thing.
You already stepped in it with your whiskey. Keep this kind of thing up and you will end up on the street with a tin cup in your hand and a sign “Will work for metal detector”.
It is my understanding that some not insignificant amount of wonderful historic artifacts are no longer around because some treasure hunters would prefer to smelt things down and profit rather than have the whole find confiscated as every jurisdiction fights Spain over which apparatchiks get to keep it.
Combine the fees, taxes, and delays, and you might just be losing money on finding it.
ACTHs don’t generally have that problem, since they’re looking for recently hidden items. They do sometimes have other issues, often related to crazy participants. In the case of Fenn’s, I actually think he carefully managed the ownership issue by clearly establishing his own ownership of the cache and conditionally transferring title to it in the text of the puzzle (it’s a poem) itself. I’d bet, though nobody’s ever asked as far as I know, that he carefully “lawyered up” on the whole thing to avoid problems with the state.
Possibly, although he thought he was dying, so he may have figured it wasn’t his problem.
Ever looked into the Charleston site for The Secret? General consensus is White Point Gardens, and I agree.
Now I’m really intrigued. I have a family member who once spent a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy (I humped a ground-penetrating radar up a mountain with him) look for stuff, but it was all stuff the Spanish had been looting from the natives and cached along the Camino Real. I had no idea there was newer stuff to be found.
Go look up Masquerade (by Kit Williams) for a historical one. The Byron Preiss’s “The Secret”, which still has several out there – one was found in Boston very recently. The Forrest Fenn Treasure is easy enough to find info on. The whole puzzle is in a poem, though IMO the book containing the poem has one important hint as well. Don’t die while looking for it – there’s been enough of that already.
Also
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-5389893/Canadian-Club-whisky-treasure-hunt-going.html
Thank you very much, the both of ya. This is fascinating stuff.
In school, they told us the Spanish explorers sent scouts ahead of the main party that communicated with the main party by leaving symbols to denote what is ahead. One of the more famous expeditions, the scout was an illiterate Moor and left behind wooden crosses to denote the significance of what lay ahead for that day’s ride.
I have no idea how true any of that is, but I heard it from a teacher…
Fabulous, Raven!
I was planning on learning nothing today, but you fucked that all up.
His condition worsened after 1769 when he was hit in the head by a tax collector’s cudgel.
I know exactly how he felt.
2X a year, April 15th and May 15th for MN residents, pocket picked, no kiss
Man, this article really brings back memories. Remember when people use to at least cosplay that this was a free country? Good times
Well done
Question authority, until you are one?
And the Governor flinches.
On Tuesday, Gov. Reynolds announced she is extending the existing disaster emergency proclamation through June 25. But more businesses will be reopening and more activities will be permitted.
Effective May 28 bars, wineries, breweries, distilleries and other social or fraternal clubs may reopen following the same public health measures as restaurants, including limiting normal operating capacity to 50 percent and social distancing groups 6 feet apart.
Live bands or other musical performers are permitted at bars and restaurants, but must also follow social distancing protocols with members of the group and audience. Restaurants and bars may have party sizes of up to 10 people.
“This was an emergency declaration. There is no longer any emergency, and thus no basis for continuing any emergency measures. Weakening the emergency measures via an elaborate “reopening plan” simply makes it more apparent that they are not for the required purpose of addressing an emergency. Therefore, as of today, the emergency declaration is lifted in its entirety. Thank you, and good day.”
The existing declaration was set to expire tomorrow.
She chickened out.
So did our Gov. (idiot-AZ). He went with the elaborate staged re-opening plan. For the life of me, I don’t see how you can square the circle of “OMG, this is an extinction-level emergency that justifies an unprecedented exercise of executive power” and “We require a staged re-opening of gradually reduced restrictions”.
Can I keep my draconian powers just a little bit longer, maybe just reduce them some? PLEEASEE!!!!
“must also follow social distancing protocols with members of the group”
Let’s pretend they also social distance during the 4 hour van ride to the gig and the 4 hour ride home after.
^^^^^ This right here is proof that all of it – the entirety of “social distancing” – is complete bullshit. Even the most cursory fan of experience and logic can see through it; it’s like watching an awful children’s birthday magician perform.
“YOU MUST SOCIAL DISTANCE ON STAGE AND BE 6′ APART WHEN PLAYING MUSICZ!!1!1!”
“We drove in the same vehicle here together for over an hour;” or
“We have been practicing in an enclosed garage together for months on end;” or
“The bass player is married to the lead singer’s sister.”
And on and on. It is all just made up – excuses to appear to be doing something AND allows governors and their lackeys to disaster LARP.
In any other context, we revile poseurs, but these assholes have 24/7 propaganda by the MSM justifying – and even encouraging – this bullshit.
“…it’s like watching an awful children’s birthday magician perform.”
*quietly steals that*
Tee hee. Uncle Majic has been a fixture of NYC television for decades now.
Bureaucrats love to complicate everything. There is only a 3-stage plan, everything else is just hooey thrown in the present the illusion that they are using their brains.
Stage 1: Panic
Stage 2: We don’t know know if we should panic anymore.
Stage 3: Ah, fuck it.
Pitkin Co. (Aspen, CO) has banned construction workers from car-pooling to job sites anywhere in the county. Of course, most of the people who work in Aspen construction car pool an hour each way to get to their employer’s location.
Double the number of cars ==> double the number of vehicle miles driven ==> double the number of automotive vehicles ==> double the number of vehicle deaths.
Except, double the number of passengers in each vehicle . . . .
fuck it.
double the number of vehicle deaths.
Double the Covid deaths.
I hadn’t thought of that. My work has an extensive van pool set up. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with that, if they ever let me go back to work.
IIRC, when Hunter Thompson ran for sheriff of Pitkin Co. (1971?), part of his platform was to ban motor vehicles from the city and have the PCSD maintain a fleet of free-to-use public bicycles.
We know someone who knows someone who lives in Aspen. He thinks there are too many construction vehicles (pick-ups, flat beds, vans, trailers, etc.) coming into Aspen every day. His solution was to have them all leave their vehicles at the park and ride and take the bus into town. We asked him how people would get things like ladders into town (I mean, there’s much more wrong with his idea but that seemed a place to start). He said the ladders could go in the same outside racks where skis are carried.
I think that someone should wear one red shoe and one blue shoe, alternating which foot they are on each day. They should wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes and a little beanie cap with a propeller on top.
They should submit for an inspection each day and pay a 100 dollar fine for violations and 250 dollars each time they don’t show up for inspection. Also, he has to paint his house purple.
I literally doubled over with laughter contemplating the logistics. I once worked craft services for commercial productions. We had a job shooting inside a Broadway theater. Due to union rules, everyone had to drop off ALL equipment on the sidewalk (100 people with personal stuff and a half dozen big trucks) so it could be carried across the threshold and dropped in the lobby by members of the Stagehand’s Union. Nobody but an IBEW member is allowed to touch a cable, light head, bulb, etc.. I had to get set up immediately because I was supposed be serving breakfast to all these angry, impatient people. Hilarity ensued.
It highlights one of the main problems with Aspen. Many of the people who live there expect repairs, remodeling, food, etc. to be delivered promptly, at low cost, with a minimum of cost. But they also impose massive restrictions, fines, etc. on the riff-raff who actually do the work. And then they wonder about why everything is so expensive (and there are legit reasons such as transportation costs). If you wanted to find a place where the Bernie Bros beliefs about “the rich” are true, Aspen is a good starting place.
And the Pitkin Co. commissioners are equally to blame because a lot of the building codes are county-based. From what I can tell, they’re mostly a bunch of impractical dolts whose main goal is to pass laws so that the other members of the board can congratulate them on what they’re doing.
I have RA. A fish can ride a bike better than I can. Fuck that crazy son of a bitch.
OT . . .We have a few Volkswagen fans here . . . why would Volkswagen use a compressor that you can’t replace the clutch on yourself. So instead of $40 for a new clutch, I need a $300 compressor and the A/C recharged (probably another $120)
I think the numbers you cite are the answer. Well, that and they probably saved themselves 3 bucks at initial assembly.
There is such a thing as a Volkswagen fan? Strange
Yes.
https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/CoGPGm4aSTelIwFFotdllw.R-q5cEJ2igmef3Lwsjb2SU
I was expecting a picture of a fan from inside the engine.
There’s probably whole clubs , fans, etc for VW. Seems like every make of vehicle has its enthusiasts. Sunbeam, Porsche, VW, who knows?
Lada
And perhaps even better, Yugo
The trend is to ever less and less repairable components in almost everything. Now it’s all replace,
I’ve got three of them. There are lots of aftermarket options.
WHat’s the year and model?
2009 Touareg (GF’s car, not mine)
Check out this guy.
He’s got a ton of good stuff as well as a good parts source.
*quickly closes window*
That would be cutting into my ammo budget.
Thank you Raven Nation! A most enjoyable article and very kind of you to provide your professional expertise at no charge to us.
Thanks for this, Raven. I’ll take a stab at it in the morning. BTW, noticed on twitter that Malice and possibly an old friend of ours had a dust up.
https://twitter.com/LordHumongous11/status/1265328692215021568
Imagine if he misplaced an apostrophe!
Miss him and EF. It is good to see that we aren’t the only ones hes overreacts to when it comes to simple jokes.
*Shrugs* Yeah, I don’t get that, either. Oh well.
Its a variant on your*
The joke is LH focused on spelling and grammar rather than the merits of the argument, which implies he has no argument.
Why’d he leave?
HM made a post mocking Greta Thunberg, there was a spat in the comments between Lord H and HM over the autism aspect of it.
I didn’t read the comment thread, it was while I was asleep but when I woke up he’d already flounced out of here.
To say that there was a “spat” would imply that at some point the communication was somewhat contemporaneous to each other. He posted when I was sleep as well and by the time I logged in, he had defamed me and left before I could respond.
I still am confused as to why he never confronted Sugarfree over the same joke just the day before, but I guess that’s diabetic privilege.
Probably because he was afraid SF would do something like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_NYNuAdIv0
I don’t think it was just you HM, you were just the last straw. I think everyone made fun of her at some point including me.
I don’t remember typing an opinion that time but thinking:
a/ everyone was patient and generous about the condition, wished well, and hoped for the best
b/ most folks thought Greta was under-aged for an international forum and a political pawn
c/ big but: either autistics are accountable for their judgment and statements or they are not: you can’t play it both ways with how we should should appreciate how novel/organic/nonlinear/whatever their thinking is on the one hand but withholding criticism when their logic crashes, they have the maths wrong, or they don’t science well on the other.
I thought the Glibertariat was not guilty, but I understood it’s a touchy subject. Sympathy and grief don’t figure into a calculation, and parents shouldn’t judge talent shows or referee little league. Compartmentalization is not easy.
If this whole thing is coming up again, I’ll say this. From time to time, I have mentioned that my father is schizophrenic. Have I ever, ever, ever got on someone’s case for using the “C-word”? Or for calling someone “schizo”? etc.? No. You know why?
1.) I’m not a perpetually offended pussy
2.) I can distinguish between something that is intended as a personal insult and something that is not.
3.) The concept that someone believes their cat is giving them orders from the world-wide Maoist revolution to wage class-war against the Sizzler because they use children’s pituitary glands in their seasoning sauces is fucking hilarious.
LH going apeshit over being the latest “victim” (of many) of a regular Malice shtick makes me feel more vindicated than I already have felt. Fuck that guy.
their cat is giving them orders from the world-wide Maoist revolution to wage class-war against the Sizzler because they use children’s pituitary glands in their seasoning sauces
Ruffalo delivers two sensitive and compelling performances on that subject; we can’t wait for each episode.
https://www.hbo.com/i-know-this-much-is-true
1.) I’m not a perpetually offended pussy
No, but you eat perpetually offended pussy. :-p
@ Ted.
Fair point.
At HM: Vindicated? You didnt do anything that nearly all of us did at some point. There is nothing to vindicate you from.
Well, regarding this. Your links on the other hand…those are going to require some self-flagellation.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
If you know what I mean.
I was confident you wouldn’t miss that one, HM.
I’ll give you threeeee guesses.
I need someone to enact some labor for me and find this post.
Here you go
https://www.glibertarians.com/2019/09/autistic-screeching/
I forgot that it wasn’t HM with the over the top Greta post.
I see nothing from LH in that post.
And, if you care further, here’s where Lord H informed the Glibertariat he was leaving (comment #48):
https://www.glibertarians.com/2019/09/tuesday-afternoon-links-67/
And HM’s response (reply to post 11): https://www.glibertarians.com/2019/09/chapter-8-its-against-the-law/
The most interesting thing to come out of that rabbit hole was that Brooks hates HM.
Ok, but who doesn’t that curmudgeon hate?
I think I have this right….
He and EF adopted a child. The child had some sort of emotional or developmental problems and things went south very fast. The child was removed from their home. It was very sad.
I think because of that he was very touchy about making fun of children with problems. It seemed like an over reaction to me but then I am not in his shoes. I was sorry to see them go.
I could have him mixed up with someone else. I am a bit daft with names. I read comments and respond before I even see who posted it. That is why I often can’t remember who made which comment or told which story. Of course this means If I compliment someone on a comment it really is because your work stands on its own merit.
I guess I don’t have an R-word pass.
With the attacks on Free Speech, we’ve had to limit the number of word passes each person is allowed to hold.
I see.
He did single you out but he also referred to.us all collectively. I see you mention he is also diabetic. I didnt know that. That is probably a factor also. I had a diabetic uncle that was completely insufferable. He was a great guy before he became diabetic. It affects some people that way.
I am not defending what he did, just saying ‘this is probably why’.
What I meant is that SugarFree (who is diabetic) made the same exact joke I did the day before and LH, despite being present, chose not to freak out. I don’t know the status of LH’s pancreas.
Seems that way.
it comes to simple jokes
I saw what you did there.
(miss LH and EF too)
Ha. Malice is wrong there.
That’s the joke. It’s his little way of triggering people.
Oh. Chuckle?
No me. His regular fans seem to like it.
It’s his brilliant observation that on the Internet, a pretentious martinet will inevitable gravitate towards a meaningless debate on orthographic conventions as opposed to paying attention to the substance of his or her interlocutor’s argument.
SHUT THE FUCK UP BIG-WORDTARD!
Sesquipedaliantard.
https://youtu.be/pE3ufg-6qOA
I clicked the link.
I wish I hadn’t.
It was very sad.
Bummer. Original tweet is gone.
Oh, man. Assholes did it again.
https://twitter.com/sarcasm_liberty/status/1265322990121648131
Was he selling loosies?
Wouldn’t matter if he were selling loose nukes. Looks like murder.
I was relieved to learn the Police Union is fully supporting these officers. Now we can only hope the Pelosi gets that HEROES bill passed so Not. One. Officer. is lost.
“To protect the lives of police officers, we are laying off 100% of the force so that they are no longer asked to go into dangerous situations. To make up for the revnue shortfall from asset forfeiture, we are levying a tax on stolen goods and the sale of narcotics.”
JFC. That’s how they get around the chokehold restrictions, apparently. They actually teach this shit. Fuckers.
It is considered a “non-deadly force option,”
Sure looks that way…
If you tackled a cop, and kneeled on his throat, pressing down with your weight, do you think you’d be charged with attempted murder or simple assault?
Assuming you survived the experience.
A civilian-involved choking.
(Yes, I know the cops are civilians too.)
Perhaps they should reevaluate their training.
Time to revise some processes and procedures, that’s all. Move along citizen.
“If he can talk, he can breathe!”
From the office of the President, FOP
If our brave enforcers of the law are not able to use the best and most advanced techniques to apprehend the common criminal, our cities will decend into total anarchy. Roving bands of Gangs will control every street corner, and no person will be safe. Not even in their own homes. I am appaled that, for political reasons the Mayor of [INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE] would subject our loyal servents to such pain and angish. We stand by [GENDERED PRONOUN OF OFFICER] and by law.
I’m sure that there is something like that that is just a form letter signed off on a daily basis.
Because cutting off blood flow to the brain isn’t a deadly force thing, I guess?
What happens when you accidentally put a slug through a shotgun barrel with a fixed choke?
With sufficient overpressure, I would assume that the barrel would rupture. During my Restricted Weapons training class, our instructor held up a shotgun that had that misfortune befall it from a dumbass owner. The front of it actually was peeled partially back like a banana. It’s not just in cartoons anymore! In any event, I predict unpleasantness.
Did you mean full choke?
Cuz fixed chokes come in all sorts of varieties and can shoot slugs.
I don’t know, the stub of an article didn’t say how muck The M30 Drilling was choked on the right hand barrel, I just wondered what happened if someone in kind of a hurry got the shells in the wrong barrels.
*shrug*
https://btycc.org/best-choke-tubes-for-slugs/
I used improved cylinder inserts in a Winchester 1200 for years out to 60 yards: it would print +/- 8″ at that range all day with rifled slugs and nothing more useful than a stupid front bead for sighting.
I had a low power scope and a rifled barrel, and with the right ammo it would do 3″ groups at 100 yards. I used a low power scope (4x).
The barrel was a freak of nature, though. I know a couple other guys who had the same after-market barrel, and they could never come close to that.
Range day before deer season was always interesting. The range would be packed, there would be a mob of Hmong there with absolutely zero firearms safety, and guys would be banging away trying to find paper with their shotguns. I’d put 3, maybe 5 rounds downrange and go home. You always check the next guy’s target when you go downrange to put up new paper, and I always got questions.
“…Hmong…”
“I always got questions”
A: “Use the sights”
Gun Jesus has a video about one but I don’t think your particular question is addressed.
https://youtu.be/LnHW3-aDP30
https://youtu.be/LnHW3-aDP30
for more on the drilling.
Good question. You can put a slug through a regular shotgun barrel – the rifled slug barrels are to improve accuracy. When I was in shotgun-only deer country in WI, I believe most of the hunters just loaded their regular 12 gauges with slugs for deer season. A plain shotgun barrel has a fixed choke, in that it can’t be adjusted. You can get the end of the barrel tapped for swapping out various chokes – full, modified, turkey, etc. I probably wouldn’t shoot a slug out of a barrel that had swappable chokes, myself. But I have a stupid accurate rifled slug barrel*, so why would I>
I suspect nothing would happen, other than the slug going downrange. As with anything gun-related, I am sure there are vicious online arguments about it, though.
*It was stupid accurate when loaded with certain saboted slugs, which I can’t recall what they were. Haven’t used it in, well, we’ll say several years.
I am sure there are vicious online arguments about it, though.
*Takes bite of
Hawaiiannormal, non-offensive pepperoni pizza and nods in agreement*Worst case probably with a full choke might be a slight increase in recoil but would be unnoticed. Base of most slugs are hollow, would allow compression. No warnings on slug boxes.
/Goes to check slug box
I don’t know what you mean by a fixed choke.
I have an Ithaca 37 that gives the tightest pattern I have ever seen. I have shot slugs through it and it works fine.
As long as a relatively soft projectile is compressed from the outside it will spit out of the barrel. The problem comes when something gets between the projectile and the barrel (water, for instance). It is also a problem if you have a fairly heavy or stuck obstruction.
I had a Browning A-5 that got a bulge in the barrel. I stood in the rain on a hunt with the barrel pointing upward for an hour or so. The I shot it. I was a dumbass.
Anyone know about or has done this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYk8fez2d0w
We did it quite a bit when I was younger. It really does shoot like a slug and does not harm the barrel unless the released part of the shell opens and the shot goes out leaving a ring of plastic stuck in the barrel, you don’t know it and shoot a second shot with it still in there. You have to check after each shot to make sure the barrel is clear.
That is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.
Thanks, Suthen!
It is pretty cool. Also devastating. The very soft, heavy projectile expands quickly and releases the shot inside the target. It’s like shooting a grenade that explodes after entering the target.
Try it….use a watermelon as a target. There are several videos on it…watch them all before trying.
As I said, after each shot make certain that the barrel is clear. Have fun but be safe.
Thanks Raven.
OT: NC gym owners preparing to sue over Gauleiter Cooper’s orders
The owners of several gyms and fitness studios across North Carolina say they will file a lawsuit Wednesday against Gov. Roy Cooper over restrictions he has put in place that have kept them closed during the coronavirus pandemic.
When Cooper laid out a three-phase plan last month to resume business and social activities statewide amid the pandemic, fitness centers were part of the second part of the plan. But when the governor actually moved the state into Phase 2 last week, gyms were left out, meaning they would have to remain closed for at least five additional weeks.
Robin and Ed Smith, who own Fit4Life health clubs across the state, are among the plaintiffs in the pending lawsuit. They maintain that the state’s restrictions are unconstitutional, violating their right to earn a living and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Based on the story, I think this is their GoFundMe.
Yup that was a huge dick move in what has been a succession of dick moves. Cooper just magically changed his dictates to forbid bars and gyms from opening with no heads up on that change. A few days after his presser he made an exception for breweries, distilleries, and wineries.
I wish the best to all that are suing for various reasons and industries, but the Reopen NC protests were very small. In my prog city most of the restauranteurs and their employees voted for Cooper bc of the transgender bathroom BS. I admit my empathy is all out of sorts and I think they are getting what they deserve. I have a food service industry neighbor that has no problem with the lockdown. [face_desk]
In a Facebook post, Aaron Robinson uploaded a picture of his car’s exhaust system apparently filled with Great Stuff foam. The post was accompanied by a letter allegedly written by an angry neighbor.”
The note reads: “I finally found you! You want our attention, you don’t want our attention. You have 14 days to fix the mufflers or put the stock exhaust back on. Don’t egg us on, you will only regret it. We encourage you to call the police, install video, nothing will work. Fix your muffler!”
https://www.carscoops.com/2020/05/angry-neighbor-allegedly-uses-expanding-foam-to-silence-mustangs-noisy-exhaust/
I’d be highly pissed if some jackass vandalized my car like that. The 2 obnoxiously loud vehicles that drive past my house regularly are pickups with some cheap and shitty sounding aftermarket exhaust. The only thing that annoys me is that these dopes really believe that it sounds good.
A lot of people that do not value private property in that comments section.
disqus_xtOeZt4qd6 • 3 hours ago
What ever happened to walking over and talking to your neighbors? People are coming unhinged.
Indeed.
The only thing that annoys me is that these dopes really believe that it sounds good.
Some do, some don’t. Depends on what you get and you get what you pay for. Personally I do not like louder exhaust, but a sporty note is fine. There is a pretty good setup that makes STI’s sound orgasmic.
Full disclosure, I own a 17′ GT and the stock exhaust is best described as wimpy. I replaced the stock exhaust with a Corsa Sport catback, at idle and under 3K RPM it’s not much louder than stock but sounds like a muscle car should. I fully agree, exhaust systems are like most other things, you usually get what you pay for.
I’ll admit that when I’m visiting my MIL in Philly, I’m tempted to put up a clothesline across the street to decapitate the guy who likes to rev his 2-stroke motorcycle up and down the street at 2am.
That said, you don’t use foam, you use potatoes, dumbass. That way, if he gets his engine started, the pressure builds until the potato fires out like a cannon.
That’s a fuckin’ hero. Same assholes pull that shit around me all day and all night. I don’t think they think it “sounds good” – I assume they just want to be as obnoxiously annoying as possible. Lot of people like that – this is their way of accomplishing it.
Now do the high amped sound system that shakes all the near vehicles. I’m thinking of running my cell phone at 120W so the other folks will think my phone calls are important
Ok, but maybe tha whistle went woo.
OMG
That’s worse than Dixie horns.
As long as it’s not those flickering brake lights.
.Many motorcyclists use pulsating lights because they draw attention to them. I’ve installed a number of headlight modulators on bikes. They also make a variety of brake light modules that do things like flash three times and then stay lit, etc.
Some people just want to pretend they are driving race cars.
Those people should be shot.
They do it because frequently people in cars hit them and claim they didn’t see them. They do whatever it takes to be seen.
The headlight flicker is mildly annoying, but the brake one is downright dangerous and distracting. Getting stuck behind one of those assholes in stop and go traffic is unnecessarily tiring from the look at me flash. Like I said, they need to be shot and their bodies hung from the overpasses as a warning.
I have no problem with that.
The exhaust in my Triumph is loud. I don’t care. I sit so low, one of the SUV-driving Karens in my neighborhood could easily drive up over me. If one of the little twits looks like she isn’t paying attention, a rev to the red line will snap her out of her dipshit-coma.
Along with the automotive designers who think a strip of excessively bright LEDs in random patterns is functionally equivalent to tail light blobs of standard shape and intensity.
They do whatever it takes to be seen.
Except wear bright-colored clothing, apparently.
a strip of excessively bright LEDs in random patterns
Yeah, that’s somewhere in Volume 3 of R C’s Pet Peeves.
A great example of how new technology makes something new possible, but “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
Except wear bright-colored clothing, apparently
But enough about bike cops, or cops in general unwilling to wear ANSI approved safety gear.
Raiders fan confirmed.
There a times when an air powered train horn would come in handy….
I lived next door to an asshole biker when I was in college. He would get drunk and at 2am crank up his Harley, stand next to it and rev the motor just to hear the noise and presumably wake the neighborhood. One night I got my marlin 444 and actually sighted in on his engine block. I was a hair from pulling the trigger when I decided it was probably not a good idea.
Fuck that guy.
Yes that’s common. I use adjustable mufflers (supertrapp) and keep them plenty quiet. Most of my customers wanted rapping and roaring pipes. I used to make fun of them.
I don’t get the exhaust system thing: either you have duals off a V block or you don’t.
Loud isn’t cool, and really loud isn’t necessary.
For me, cool will always be a big cam with a bunch-o-overlap “idling” at 1000 RPM. . . still, not necessarily loud.
NO! DO NOT WANT!
Oh for fuck’s sake! Biden almost single-handedly ended the complete Democratic monopoly on black votes, accelerating #Blexit by decades, and then “Conservative Twitter” pulls this bullshit!
Y’all need to stop being like the Palestinians in never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Like Texas, the republicans never miss a chance to snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
This is the only appropriate response.
Good article Raven! I done learned today.