Not Born Into Being Human

Small Dead Animals (one of my favorite blogs) has video of a racism trainer explaining that not only are all white people racist but that they cannot work past it, and “I believe white people are born not into being human.” It appears to be one of those mandatory corporate training exercises.

As a supervisor, I’m now wondering if I have to allow white employees to do or say racist things lest I run afoul of the Americans with Disability Act.

Source: Not Born Into Being Human

Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

One of the questions involving the Kyle Rittenhouse defensive engagements in Kenosha, Wisconsin, just before midnight on the 25th of August, 2020, is if Kyle was forbidden from carrying an AR15 rifle, because Kyle was, at that time, four months short of his 18th birthday.

The explanation of the law at ar15.com is very good. However, I thought it could profitably be elaborated for those who do not read the law extensively.

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or which have an over all length less than 26 inches.

The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type, does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.

Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.


(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.

How about statute 29.539?

29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.

To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 948.60 only forbids people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.

Source: Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

Shades of Dan Rather in Jeffrey Goldberg’s anti-Trump hit piece

(Paul Mirengoff) Should we believe the story, reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, that President Trump made disparaging comments about American soldiers who died in Normandy? I don’t. Trump has a very nasty side, but I doubt he made the nasty comments Goldberg’s attributes to him.

Source: Shades of Dan Rather in Jeffrey Goldberg’s anti-Trump hit piece

Shoot To Wound?

And I recall reading a police magazine that had been left lying around. The cover article pointed out that police are much worse at both driving and shooting than they think they are.

And based on recent events, it looks like Kyle Rittenhouse is much better at shooting than the average cop.

Stately McDaniel Manor

I see it all the time, and much more frequently these “interesting” days.  The police shoot someone, and whether it was clearly justified or not, talking heads, D/S/Cs, and others plaintively or angrily demand:

View original post 2,224 more words

What You Need to Know About Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Kenosha Violence

From the Daily Signal — looks pretty balanced to me.

Swearer: Yes. This idea of who was the initial aggressor becomes important.

Wisconsin, like most states, has a law that essentially says, look, you can claim self-defense except for in two circumstances. The first is when you do something unlawful to provoke the violence, or when you do something, regardless of whether it’s lawful or unlawful, with the intent, specifically, of provoking people to attack you so that you can then use it as a guise to kill your attacker.

In those two situations, it’s provocation, and you can’t claim self-defense anymore.

Now, at least as to this idea of, was he provoking? Was he intentionally seeming to provoke the attack? I mean, it’s hard to say that when you look at the video. You have an individual who is, in the first case, actively running away and being chased.

Now it’s possible, maybe he said something or did something prior to that. I think, certainly, the state will try to argue that if he was in illegal possession of that rifle, he was doing something unlawful.

You also have this reality that I think the state is going to play into of saying, “We’re going to paint this kid as essentially showing up with a rifle planning to kill someone.” Again, “He was this white nationalist who was trying to create a situation where he could kill protesters and claim self-defense.”

It’s just so hard because you have videos from earlier in the day where he is just cleaning graffiti, saying, “Look, I’m here peacefully. My goal is not to hurt anybody.”

Daily Signal

Laws and Communities

This letter appeared at Cafe Hayek, as an example of the importance of local knowledge (in contrast to dictates from a non-local authority). It’s easy for someone to decree “there ought to be a law”, and wind up causing more trouble than the law is able to solve, simply because of a lack of knowledge about the particular circumstances.

Another theme I’ve noticed has to do with the difference between law and legislation. To the extent that law is a description of what actually happens, you can’t change the laws by decree. You can write legislation, but if it violates natural law, it won’t work.

Dear Editor:

Today’s NY Times has a heart wrenching piece about how employers disregarded the needs of pregnant employees. The stories presented sound horrific. Although, I always want to fully hear the other side.

In fact, as a small business owner — who ran a warehouse — I can speak to that other side.

First and foremost, employers’ responsibility is to assure fairness to ALL employees and keep peace in the workplace. When making special accomodations for one employee, an employer must ensure she is not overly burdening other employees. Most particularly, we must avoid divisive resentment. Both of these require the assistance of the disabled employee.

Over the years two different warehouse employees were pregnant. Employee A solicited the help of her co-workers. She found ways to lessen their load to compensate for the added burden she placed on them. Employee B used the law to demand special accomodation. Employee B showed little concern for how her request impacted others.

In situation A, it was a pleasure to provide special accommodation. All happily chipped in.

In situation B, all the other employees complained about fairness to them — how they had to do the hard work for Employee B. Resent abounded, other employees claimed their own disabilities — so they also could get accommodations, etc. The workplace — despite my best efforts — became angry.

Laws do not overcome human nature. Workplaces are communities. If we want to help those with “special” needs, it is as much incumbent upon the disabled employee as it is on the employer. After all none of us want an employer to be a dictator using the law to force employees to act against their own will. Stricter and stricter laws do exactly that — force employers to dictate policies that should happen naturally in a community of workers.

[emphasis added]

The Riot Act

The Riot Act

Ever wanted to read someone the Riot Act? Apparently all you need to do is find a group of 12 or more people “tumultuously assembled” and declare the following (preferably with a British accent, of course):

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons being assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George for preventing tumultuous and riotous assemblies. God save the King.

(A bit of Westlaw research suggests that this isn’t the entire act as passed in 1715, but it’s the part that had to be read to disperse the crowd; anyone who hadn’t dispersed in one hour after this was read was guilty of “felony riot.”)