Another Bar Story-This One of Mystery and Intrigue

One day while doing my managerial duty stuff, I answered the phone. So far so good, right. On the other end of the line was a prosecutor from Greene County, Missouri, the Springfield area. He told me that he was investigating a fraud. He had a woman named Jane Poe (not her real name and that's not all) who was seeking WIC and other benefits for her newborn child. The problem is that according to the Social Security Administration I had a woman by the same name working for me in Kansas City. And yes, I had a Jane Poe working for me.

He told me that he suspected his Jane Poe was using my Jane Poe's information to get illegal benefits.

So I went on the hound dog trail and after a couple of days discovered the truth: there was a fraud being perpetrated, not against him but against me. You see, he had the real Jane Poe in Springfield. I had Jane's sister Lynne. You see Jane was over the age of 21 and could tend bar, Lynne wasn't 21 and it was illegal for her to tend bar. Lynne took Jane's ID and got herself a job at my bar.

When I was sure of my information I called the man in Greene County back. He told me "Wait, I'm investigating a fraud here!" I told him "Yes you are, it's just not the fraud you thought it was." He was finally convinced he had the real Jane and I had the real Lynne. Jane got her benefits and Lynne got fired.

See, not all bar stories are beer and blood. There's some real Micky Spillane some days.

Lawyers, Guns, and Money

I went home with a waitress,

the way I always do.

How was I to know,

She was with the Russians too!

-Warren Zevon, "Lawyers, Guns, and Money"

You won't find any legal-eagle details from my end. You will find them on one of several favorite News Channels and Web Sites. The news is that President Obama has signed several executive orders tantamount to controlling the kinds of weaponry that can now be purchased by civilians in the United States. Like I said, I don't know much. I don't know if it bans sale or possession. I don't know if current owners can keep their weapons. I don't even know what kinds of weapons.

I will make one assumption about kinds of weapons. I assume the controls do not extend to every weapon in America.

Let me begin by letting you know where I stand. I'm not opposed to weapons in general. I love venison! I don't care if it's brought down by bow or rifle. Some people hunt for meat to extend the family budget. It is a form of harvesting God's bounty. As for taxidermy, well, I'd prefer hunting for go rather than for show, but that's up to the conservation people not the gun people.

The second thing I will let you know is that 25 years ago my girlfriend committed suicide with a shotgun. She and her friends were going hunting the next day. Guns in the house to go hunting? Yeah, that's not stupid. Were they locked up? If one of the guns was hers she would have access to the cabinet so that's neither here nor there. My point is no amount of gun control would have prevented that. No use blaming anyone and a gun for that and I don't.

My real question is why do civilians need weapons that can rapidly fire in high quantity? That one I don't get. My reflex is to say no civilian needs that kind of fire power. A friend from suburban (formerly rural) Olathe, Kansas displayed his guns, including two weapons that looked like the kind that would quickly fire lots of rounds. The clips on them would hold lots of rounds too. What does a man in suburban Kansas City need with what looks like an assault rifle? Is he a criminal mastermind involved in a violent trade? No. Is he living in fear of criminal masterminds involved in a violent trade? I don't know. I really don't.

I would welcome someone teaching me why these weapons are necessary in civilian hands in the United States, especially in the suburbs. Seriously! I am genuinely curious! Teach me! Also, expect me to ask more questions if I continue not to understand.

Now to take a different tact, let's check out some George Carlin...(Blue language warning! By the way, I don't agree with what GC says about God. Now if he rephrased it to talk about how some folks "speak for God" I'd have much less problem with that. Go to 7:43 for the pertinent part.)

Carlin says something Mr. Sparks, my high school government teacher used to say. Mr. Sparks taught that as long as rights can be defined and redefined we have no rights. Do we have freedom of speech? Well, I can't just go into a classroom and begin teaching what I want to teach. The teacher would be upset. The administration would be upset. That would eventually make the police upset and I would learn that I did not have freedom of speech in that time and place. (Give it a try, you'll see what I mean.)

Constitutional provisions would apply because public education is a function of government. (Private schools have their own protective laws.) Still, because of time and place I don't have a right to address a classroom just because I want to be heard. (Again, give it a try, you'll see what I mean.) Technically, in this case I do not have a constitutionally granted right.

So do we really have any rights if they can be taken away? Carlin says no. Our government says we have rights but some of them can be curtailed. If you don't believe that give the Patriot Act a good read.

First though, what is an executive order? Wikipedia says "the intent [of the Executive Order is] to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government." So they help direct the Executive Branch do what it does and how it does it.

I guess the constitutional question will be are the Executive Orders signed by President Obama legal or not, constitutional or not. It is not the right of any given Congressman or the man on the street to decide. This one will be left up to the courts to decide. Let them do their job I say.

If the orders are found legal (or whatever) they will remain. If not they will be vacated. An example of a vacated order happened when the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. (Italics added because that will be the final test of these Executive Orders.)

This is a long post, but I hope it's useful. Here's what I say:

1. The President signed some Executive Orders limiting weapons in the hands of civilians.
2. They may or may not be constitutional.
3. It will be up to the courts to decide.
4. If rights can be defined and redefined it can be asked if we really have rights. Some say no, I see their point.
5. I can't understand the civilian want and need to own weapons made for military combat. If there is a reason beyond "I want to start a war" and "I'm afraid someone wants to start a war" I'm listening.
6. I don't get it, but I'm willing to listen and learn. I can't promise I will agree with you, but I will respect your right to your opinion hoping you will do the same for me.

I guess it's worth adding that somewhere in the middle of my list we can add "Many people will do a lot of yelling and screaming" and "Much of it will be overly emotional spouting with limited use beyond the cathartic." With that it's worth quoting Warren one more time...

...Send lawyers, guns and money

the shit has hit the fan!