By: Zach McCormick
11/16/14
My Wife and I used to go to the movies all the time but frankly we haven't been drawn to anything lately. That changed last night when we saw "St. Vincent" where Bill Murray and his co-stars really hit a heartwarming little tale out of the park. Everyone did a good job and it all felt "real".
Good writing, cheerful at times but definitely echoing events that could've actually taken place.
Worth the price of admission in my opinion.
A blog by attorney Zach McCormick covering topics ranging from angry anteaters to zombie zoologists.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Friday, November 14, 2014
ATF Gives Approximate Date For Gun Trust Rule Change
In an article posted by the American Suppressor Association (ASA) on November 4th, 2014 it was reported that the ATF expects to rule on the so called "41p" rule change implemented by Obama's executive order.
It appears that, if the rule change is implemented (and I don't see how it won't be) then one of the primary benefits that gun trusts have provided may be taken away. Specifically, it is now more likely that it will be necessary to get a chief law enforcement officer's signature on any paperwork used to apply for the transfer and stamp.
This is of course simply one more consequence of ceding power to a government that has unquenchable thirst for the same.
As of now it appears that the ATF is predicting the matter will be "heard" around May of 2015. It may be that now is the time to get a gun trust lest it go the way of fully automatic arms pre-86'.
It appears that, if the rule change is implemented (and I don't see how it won't be) then one of the primary benefits that gun trusts have provided may be taken away. Specifically, it is now more likely that it will be necessary to get a chief law enforcement officer's signature on any paperwork used to apply for the transfer and stamp.
This is of course simply one more consequence of ceding power to a government that has unquenchable thirst for the same.
As of now it appears that the ATF is predicting the matter will be "heard" around May of 2015. It may be that now is the time to get a gun trust lest it go the way of fully automatic arms pre-86'.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Net Neutrality: A Band-Aid, Not a Cure
By: Zach McCormick
11/12/14
President Obama recently voiced his support for "net neutrality" (the notion that internet providers should not be allowed to prioritize or censor their users content for profit) and encouraged the FCC to support such measures. A proposal that is, not surprisingly, staunchly opposed by internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon etc.
The idea misses the bigger picture and affords only a temporary fix to a much more insidious problem. Put simply, the idea that information should be freely transmitted is good but the notion that business shouldn't be able to make money in a free market is bad.
Yet, its not quite as simple as that, because the major internet providers don't exactly live in a "free market". In fact one need only try and get one cable/phone company to give you a quote against another cable/phone company to realize that each has a governmentally enforced monopoly in its own arbitrary and anachronistic territory.
Hence, we would probably be better off with a true free market solution as opposed to intrusive government oversight. In the meantime, net neutrality is the best option we've got for keeping information flowing smoothly.
11/12/14
President Obama recently voiced his support for "net neutrality" (the notion that internet providers should not be allowed to prioritize or censor their users content for profit) and encouraged the FCC to support such measures. A proposal that is, not surprisingly, staunchly opposed by internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon etc.
The idea misses the bigger picture and affords only a temporary fix to a much more insidious problem. Put simply, the idea that information should be freely transmitted is good but the notion that business shouldn't be able to make money in a free market is bad.
Yet, its not quite as simple as that, because the major internet providers don't exactly live in a "free market". In fact one need only try and get one cable/phone company to give you a quote against another cable/phone company to realize that each has a governmentally enforced monopoly in its own arbitrary and anachronistic territory.
Hence, we would probably be better off with a true free market solution as opposed to intrusive government oversight. In the meantime, net neutrality is the best option we've got for keeping information flowing smoothly.
ATF Publishes 80% Lower Guidelines...Finally
By: Zach McCormick
11/12/14
I saw this on one of my favorite gun blogs "TheFirearmBlog.com" via "Ammoland.com" and I thought it was very useful for anyone who has considered either selling or purchasing an 80% finished lower receiver.
This of course on the heels of the recent ATF raids on retailers selling lower receivers that were 80% (or less) completed in violation of a judge's restraining order.
Its nice to see this agency finally bringing some clarity the issue.
11/12/14
I saw this on one of my favorite gun blogs "TheFirearmBlog.com" via "Ammoland.com" and I thought it was very useful for anyone who has considered either selling or purchasing an 80% finished lower receiver.
This of course on the heels of the recent ATF raids on retailers selling lower receivers that were 80% (or less) completed in violation of a judge's restraining order.
Its nice to see this agency finally bringing some clarity the issue.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Make the USA a DMZ
Police aren't soldiers and for good reason; soldiers fight an enemy and police should almost never be in a position to target their fellow citizens as if they were in a war zone. It is time to start de-militarizing our police officers so that we can once again enjoy their protection without fear of being harmed ourselves.
The events in Ferguson Missouri highlighted the issue of militarized law enforcement in this country. We saw first hand how arming and equipping police with military gear and then sending them out onto the streets can and will have catastrophic effects if the conditions are right.
It is sad that it took death and destruction to get people talking about what has been staring us in the face for some time now. However, though it is undoubtedly small comfort to those that have suffered, this may mark the turning point in America.
Before change can occur however, we have to identify the root of the problem. To do this certain questions need to be answered such as why cops have gotten so aggressive and why they feel the need to equip themselves so heavily.
The principle of preparedness is usually sensible and it seems that most police will say that they "need" their [true] assault rifles (ones that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull) and their military style body armor. They will point to how violent their world has become and how they do not want to take a risk by letting their guard down.
Their fears are probably warranted, but perhaps not for the reasons they realize. Police are in danger, but not because of a concerted effort by some nameless evil that thirsts for the blood of policemen. The police are in danger because they are being asked to enforce laws that the citizenry simply doesn't want enforced. The problem is the "War on Drugs".
Drug crimes are usually "possession crimes" where the mere act of possessing the item is the crime itself. This type of crime is manifestly unjust due to the fact that no harm comes from mere possession of almost anything. For example, cars can kill people but only when operated incorrectly. Hence, the mere act of owning the car does not cause deaths whereas the act of driving a car into a crowd does.
Drug crimes are prioritized for increased enforcement in this modern era in many cases, to the exclusion of the more traditionally recognized offenses such as theft or battery. This puts police on the wrong side of justice and they naturally bear the brunt of the publics' inherent aggression. This in turn has led them to espouse tactics that, by definition, place the police at odds with the public they are sworn to protect.
This leads to a lack of sympathy, fear and even anger within the law enforcement community and the gap between police and the citizenry widens further. Then, with both sides distrusting each other, even the smallest spark can start an inferno.
The drug laws need a drastic change, to the extent that they may need to be all but totally repealed. This will be initially unthinkable as just about everyone born in the last 40 years has been raised to believe that drugs are inherently bad. They may indeed be bad, but as grown adults, we must learn to control ourselves without crutch of having a law to criminalize it.
The reward that awaits us for taking such a mature move is unfathomably large; it will have the effect of freeing up huge resources across a wide spectrum. Overnight drug cartels will cease to exist and with them the crime that they create. Government spending on law enforcement can be cut by an order of magnitude and the national debt with it.
End the war on drugs and we make a DMZ from sea to shining sea.
The events in Ferguson Missouri highlighted the issue of militarized law enforcement in this country. We saw first hand how arming and equipping police with military gear and then sending them out onto the streets can and will have catastrophic effects if the conditions are right.
It is sad that it took death and destruction to get people talking about what has been staring us in the face for some time now. However, though it is undoubtedly small comfort to those that have suffered, this may mark the turning point in America.
Before change can occur however, we have to identify the root of the problem. To do this certain questions need to be answered such as why cops have gotten so aggressive and why they feel the need to equip themselves so heavily.
The principle of preparedness is usually sensible and it seems that most police will say that they "need" their [true] assault rifles (ones that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull) and their military style body armor. They will point to how violent their world has become and how they do not want to take a risk by letting their guard down.
Their fears are probably warranted, but perhaps not for the reasons they realize. Police are in danger, but not because of a concerted effort by some nameless evil that thirsts for the blood of policemen. The police are in danger because they are being asked to enforce laws that the citizenry simply doesn't want enforced. The problem is the "War on Drugs".
Drug crimes are usually "possession crimes" where the mere act of possessing the item is the crime itself. This type of crime is manifestly unjust due to the fact that no harm comes from mere possession of almost anything. For example, cars can kill people but only when operated incorrectly. Hence, the mere act of owning the car does not cause deaths whereas the act of driving a car into a crowd does.
Drug crimes are prioritized for increased enforcement in this modern era in many cases, to the exclusion of the more traditionally recognized offenses such as theft or battery. This puts police on the wrong side of justice and they naturally bear the brunt of the publics' inherent aggression. This in turn has led them to espouse tactics that, by definition, place the police at odds with the public they are sworn to protect.
This leads to a lack of sympathy, fear and even anger within the law enforcement community and the gap between police and the citizenry widens further. Then, with both sides distrusting each other, even the smallest spark can start an inferno.
The drug laws need a drastic change, to the extent that they may need to be all but totally repealed. This will be initially unthinkable as just about everyone born in the last 40 years has been raised to believe that drugs are inherently bad. They may indeed be bad, but as grown adults, we must learn to control ourselves without crutch of having a law to criminalize it.
The reward that awaits us for taking such a mature move is unfathomably large; it will have the effect of freeing up huge resources across a wide spectrum. Overnight drug cartels will cease to exist and with them the crime that they create. Government spending on law enforcement can be cut by an order of magnitude and the national debt with it.
End the war on drugs and we make a DMZ from sea to shining sea.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Mental Health: The New Front in the War on Gun Rights
By: Zach McCormick
www.zjmlaw.com
5/7/14
Hillary Clinton recently told a body of mental health professionals at the National Counsel for Behavioral Health that the United States should "rein in its gun culture". Her perspective should hardly come as a surprise to anyone but what was noteworthy was how her actions coincided with the latest strategy in the war on guns.
The latest battleground is mental health and groups on both sides of the gun debate have actually unified in saying that people with mental health issues shouldn't have guns. Lets be clear; people with serious mental health problems shouldn't have guns, but who exactly has a mental health disorder? That question may have been easy to answer in days gone by, but today, the list of people that have diagnosable disorders has grown by leaps and bounds.
In fact, the psychiatric bible known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or "DSM" has been expanded considerably since its creation over 50 years ago. Under the latest parameters, as much as 26% of the adult American population could be considered to have a mental illness. Yet, in comparison, only 6% of Americans are deemed to suffer from "serious mental illness" according to the National Institute of Mental Health's numbers. These numbers are staggering given their sheer scale.
This reality might be easier to accept if these new categories were created in a totally unbiased vacuum. Yet, it appears that financially interested parties (pharmaceutical companies) have considerable say in deciding what should be called a disorder these days. (See: PLOS Medicine Article by Krimsky and Cosgrove). In its most simplistic sense, this ties Americans' gun rights to a body whose members may stand to profit from deciding to call something a mental health disorder.
Complicating things further, is the fact that over diagnosis appears to be at an all time high and although we are now better equipped to spot and treat mental illness, the drugs that are being prescribed may be causing their own problems. In fact, this controversy has caused considerable disagreement within the mental health community.
It is important to acknowledge that technically, in Florida, there are legal safeguards found within Statute 790.065 that are designed to prevent abuse. Yet, despite these safeguards, the practical reality is that mental health patients get churned through a few underfunded, and overworked institutions where the attending doctors have very little time to spend with each person. Additionally, it is extremely rare for a patient to get the chance to fully present a defense at the short hearing that occurs in each case. Finally, once a citizen is branded, the burden shifts to him to reverse the finding of mental deficiency.
This process stands in stark contrast to American legal tradition of "presumed innocent" and it forces the citizen to submit himself to a potentially humiliating and time consuming process of seeking "relief from a firearms disability".
Given how important this issue is, we should carefully scrutinize all matters relating to mental health and gun rights.
www.zjmlaw.com
5/7/14
Hillary Clinton recently told a body of mental health professionals at the National Counsel for Behavioral Health that the United States should "rein in its gun culture". Her perspective should hardly come as a surprise to anyone but what was noteworthy was how her actions coincided with the latest strategy in the war on guns.
The latest battleground is mental health and groups on both sides of the gun debate have actually unified in saying that people with mental health issues shouldn't have guns. Lets be clear; people with serious mental health problems shouldn't have guns, but who exactly has a mental health disorder? That question may have been easy to answer in days gone by, but today, the list of people that have diagnosable disorders has grown by leaps and bounds.
In fact, the psychiatric bible known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or "DSM" has been expanded considerably since its creation over 50 years ago. Under the latest parameters, as much as 26% of the adult American population could be considered to have a mental illness. Yet, in comparison, only 6% of Americans are deemed to suffer from "serious mental illness" according to the National Institute of Mental Health's numbers. These numbers are staggering given their sheer scale.
This reality might be easier to accept if these new categories were created in a totally unbiased vacuum. Yet, it appears that financially interested parties (pharmaceutical companies) have considerable say in deciding what should be called a disorder these days. (See: PLOS Medicine Article by Krimsky and Cosgrove). In its most simplistic sense, this ties Americans' gun rights to a body whose members may stand to profit from deciding to call something a mental health disorder.
Complicating things further, is the fact that over diagnosis appears to be at an all time high and although we are now better equipped to spot and treat mental illness, the drugs that are being prescribed may be causing their own problems. In fact, this controversy has caused considerable disagreement within the mental health community.
It is important to acknowledge that technically, in Florida, there are legal safeguards found within Statute 790.065 that are designed to prevent abuse. Yet, despite these safeguards, the practical reality is that mental health patients get churned through a few underfunded, and overworked institutions where the attending doctors have very little time to spend with each person. Additionally, it is extremely rare for a patient to get the chance to fully present a defense at the short hearing that occurs in each case. Finally, once a citizen is branded, the burden shifts to him to reverse the finding of mental deficiency.
This process stands in stark contrast to American legal tradition of "presumed innocent" and it forces the citizen to submit himself to a potentially humiliating and time consuming process of seeking "relief from a firearms disability".
Given how important this issue is, we should carefully scrutinize all matters relating to mental health and gun rights.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Popular Flu Vaccines Not Effective: Who Dropped the Ball?
By: Zach McCormick
4/14/14
Last night as I sat reading the evening news via my twitter feed, this headline by Forbes contributor Paul Rodgers caught my eye. It read, "Tamiflu Is No Better Than Tylenol At Fighting Flu". It referred to a recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration which indicated that the popular flu vaccines 'Tamiflu' and 'Relenza' are not only far less effective than originally thought, but in some cases more harmful than beneficial.
The Cochrane piece also described the struggle to get access to the results of the Tamiflu and Relenza drug trials and then, once finally obtained, discovered that the drugs are probably next to useless.
I was quite startled by this assertion because I have heard for years that these drugs were the best way to avoid getting and spreading the flu. In fact, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on massive stockpiles of these drugs. It now appears to have been a giant waste.
Of course if, as a result of a colossal regulatory failure, people were actually hurt by these drugs, then the pain of money lost would pale in comparison to the to horror of knowing that something intended for good actually caused harm to innocent people.
I accept that there are many factors involved with how the FDA goes about doing its job. Yet, assuming the Cochrane study is accurate which is highly probable, 'the thing speaks for itself' as to how badly someone screwed up on this one.
I wonder how this scandal will influence the way drugs are "checked" in this country going forward.
4/14/14
Last night as I sat reading the evening news via my twitter feed, this headline by Forbes contributor Paul Rodgers caught my eye. It read, "Tamiflu Is No Better Than Tylenol At Fighting Flu". It referred to a recent study by the Cochrane Collaboration which indicated that the popular flu vaccines 'Tamiflu' and 'Relenza' are not only far less effective than originally thought, but in some cases more harmful than beneficial.
The Cochrane piece also described the struggle to get access to the results of the Tamiflu and Relenza drug trials and then, once finally obtained, discovered that the drugs are probably next to useless.
I was quite startled by this assertion because I have heard for years that these drugs were the best way to avoid getting and spreading the flu. In fact, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on massive stockpiles of these drugs. It now appears to have been a giant waste.
Of course if, as a result of a colossal regulatory failure, people were actually hurt by these drugs, then the pain of money lost would pale in comparison to the to horror of knowing that something intended for good actually caused harm to innocent people.
I accept that there are many factors involved with how the FDA goes about doing its job. Yet, assuming the Cochrane study is accurate which is highly probable, 'the thing speaks for itself' as to how badly someone screwed up on this one.
I wonder how this scandal will influence the way drugs are "checked" in this country going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)