Montezuma 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (30)
-
On the post: Send A Sympathy Card Over The Death Of The Internet To Your Senator
-
On the post: Loaded Gun Falls Out Of Checked Bag. Feeling Secure At Airports Yet?
Montezuma ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2011 @ 11:25amFirearms are allowed on planes, albeit not in this way.
You guys do understand that civilians can bring firearms onto planes, but there are restrictions to this. It isn't as if civilians can bring loaded firearms into the passenger compartments of the plan. Though, I believe civilians should be able to do that, such a discussion is for another place.
In order to bring a firearm onto a plane, the firearm must be:
1. Unloaded, which included, most annoyingly, removing all ammunition from the firearm's magazine(s).
2. The firearm(s), ammunition, and magazine(s) must all be locked in a secured container. This container must be loaded into the passenger's checked luggage. The passenger has to, stupidly, open the container, allow for inspection, the lock the container.
The passenger, not the airline, nor some governmental agent, must maintain the key, or other entry device. Also, the luggage cannot be marked to notate that a firearm is held within, for obvious reasons. I have found the cases I carry my rifles and/or handguns in pried at, but never fully opened, thanks to the wonderful engineering of the manufacturer of my firearm cases.
3. The firearm must be declared at the checked luggage counter. If this step is missed or avoided, this can cause problems for the passenger.
4. No more than fifty(50) round of ammunition can be carried onto the plane. This is really irritating, as this means that I have to pay a lot of money for 500 to 2,000 round of ammunition wherever I ended up traveling to. This gets expensive, as there is not always a police supply, or other discount ammunition outlet where I am traveling to.
Other rules will depend on the airline you are traveling with. I have run into many stupid people that give me a "what do we do with this?" look when I go to check my firearm(s). I even run into, on rare occasions, where these idiots will want to removed my firearm(s), in view of everyone, to "check" the firearm(s), which they are unable to successfully maneuver.
If my traveling were not so important, I wouldn't do it. The only problem is that those classes will not teach themselves. -
On the post: TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles
Montezuma ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2011 @ 12:11amI want the TSA to come to Georgia and attempt to monitor riders of MARTA, either bus or rail. If and when that occurs, then my pals at GeorgiaCarry.Org and GeorgiaPacking.Org will organize large groups of people to come and openly carry their firearms in front of the TSA, and/or any other idiots involved. Perhaps citizens will feel more safe when they see fellow citizens armed. Hell, it cannot make them feel less safe than having the TSA around.
Of course, such a thing would never happen in California. -
On the post: NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
Montezuma ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2011 @ 07:59pmRe: Re:
You obviously do not know what the Second Amendment states. As a matter of fact, I would tend to believe you could not tell me anything, of substance, about the US Constitution, without looking it up on Wikipedia, or through Google.
The Second Amendment covers the right to "...keep and bear arms...", not just the right to purchase a shotgun from Walmart. -
On the post: NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
Montezuma ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2011 @ 01:21pmTurning the First Amendment into a "privilege"? Oh, you mean how the various states, and the US Government has turned our Second Amendment right into a "privilege". You see, this is what we firearm owners warned you about. Just deal with it.
I am sure that most here never had our back, so why should we have any of your backs? Oh, and this gets worse. Eventually, more of our rights will be taken away, or severely reduced. So, I just want you to remember this. I know that it hurts losing your rights, but many of us have been dealing with that for years.
You see, once the various governments started raping the Second Amendment, it left nothing for people to fight for their other rights with. That isn't to mean that we have to engage in an armed rebellion; it just means that there is nothing left for government to fear.
Checks and balances: It use to work. -
On the post: Man Claims Apple Investigators Pretended To Be SF Police In Searching For Lost iPhone Prototype [Updated: Or Not]
Montezuma ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2011 @ 06:28pmRe: Identification of Officials (Government or otherwise)
We already have such a protection, and it is titled the "Second Amendment". If someone is impersonating a law enforcement officer, it is a firearm to the face(not necessarily discharging the firearm, perhaps just pointing said firearm). If a police officer is attempting to effect an illegal arrest, same deal.
Really, one is free to use force to protect themselves, in certain circumstances. The caveat to that is that is must be the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the aggressive, illegal action. So, is issuing a command to stop will stop the illegal action, then that is the maximum amount of force allowed. If it takes more, then more is available.
As to the Apple "detectives", this kind of mess would not occur in my state(Georgia). These "detectives" would have been ordered to leave, immediately. If they failed to, that would be criminal trespass, which is a crime(obviously). As such, it would have allowed a "citizen's arrest". Any officer's on-scene would have been in serious trouble.
Search warrants and arrest warrants can only be executed by law enforcement, in my state. If no such warrant exists(which it seems as if there was no warrant), then the officers would have been guilty of criminal trespass, too. That is a serious violation.
Given the facts of the situation, I could probably bring a Title 18 USC, Section 242 complaint against any sworn officers, on scene. -
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Montezuma ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2011 @ 12:54pmI find it appalling that so many of you find the actions of the officer to be "good". While he seems like a nice guy, the officer is still violating the citizen's rights. Of course, that is to be expected from California. It is beyond ridiculous how that state treats its armed citizens.
In Georgia, the simply taking of the firearm, without probable cause(PC), or reasonable, articulable suspicion(RAS), is illegal(State v Jones). The mere possession of a firearm has been held, by many state and federal courts, to not provide RAS or PC to detain a person. This is grounded on the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. Though, hey, just keep allowing law enforcement in California to violate people's rights.
From 0:45 to 0:48 is where it all goes downhill. The officer doesn't know who the citizen is? Well, it isn't his place to know. Unless the officer can articulate that the citizen was doing something that lead to the suspicion that illegal activity was about to occur, was currently in progress, or had just occurred(Terry v Ohio), then the stop was baseless.
Law enforcement is not your personal security(Warren v District of Columbia). The sooner people start to understand this, the sooner that more people will decide to arm themselves. Law enforcement, just like fire fighters and Emergency Medical Technicians, are not required to render services, when needed. Such services are on a "best efforts" levels, though they are not legally required to assist when called upon.
Was the officer a "jerk"? No. I have seen far worse(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc), but that does not absolve the officer from violating a person's rights.
I could go on quoting case law and the like, but I am sure it go past most of you and, in turn, you will just start telling me how there would be "blood in the streets" and "kids dead everywhere" if law enforcement did not harass law abiding citizen carrying firearms. -
On the post: Kevin Smith's Red State Movie Nearing Profitability… Even Prior To Regular Theatrical Release
Montezuma ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2011 @ 08:55amHow about we talk about how Mr. Smith's movie, Red State, sucks horribly? That and it has only made, to date, at least, $815,832 towards its reported $4,000,000 USD budget. Better yet, let's talk about how Kevin Smith is nothing more than a rabid hater of those of us how exist on the right, or have a belief in God.
This movie is nothing more than one of his wet dream rants about things that he hates. It seems like Mr. Smith should hook up with Michael Moore and commiserate over their hatred of the better humans in the world(i.e. those that are not filled with ridiculous hate).
Perhaps Kevin Smith was diddled by a catholic priest(which would make since, with movies like Dogma), so he believes all Christians, or all of those on the "right", should be persecuted. Either way, Mr. Smith, leave us the hell alone.
Regardless, a 29% Rotten Tomatoes rating, along with other, very bad reviews, are going to do nothing more than sink this horrible movie. It would be nice to see other move away from big Hollywood distributors, but I would rather see better films do this. -
On the post: Sony Demanding Identity Of Anyone Who Saw PS3 Jailbreak Video On YouTube
Montezuma ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2011 @ 10:09amRe:
Gun to a person's own head...hmmm...where have I seen that? Oh yeah, Blazing Saddles. Wait, that actually worked...in the movie, at least.
-
On the post: Some Good, Some Bad In New Ruling On Whether Or Not WoW Bot Infringes Copyright
Montezuma ( profile ), 14 Dec, 2010 @ 07:01pmRe:
Well, good for you if you choose to get screwed over and not take control of something that you own. I do not give a fuck what you think. When I pay for a product, regardless of whether or not it a tangible good or not, I expect that I own that product until I sell it or give it away. Who are the courts to think they can dictate to me that I do not own certain products that I purchased?
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is so bat shit crazy that it is impossible to figure out how it will rule on any matter before it. It is high time that the U.S. Government abort that whole court and bring in judges that will follow the goddamn U.S. Constitution and not the special interest they support. -
On the post: Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy
Montezuma ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2010 @ 06:41pmMy girlfriend purchase the latest installment of the Twilight series(Eclipse?). She paid $20 USD for it, but it only offered the full movie; there are no special features. She was rather unhappy, until we returned to the store and found that we would have to pay an extra $10 USD for these "special features".
I told her and the clerk that those features are not special enough to warrant an extra $10 USD. Studios should be ashamed. This is beyond ridiculous. This has brought me to the decision to never purchase another movie. -
On the post: Rethinking Bullying: Kids Don't See It As Bullying
Montezuma ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2010 @ 08:05amRe:
Just what the hell did "September 11th" have to do with bullying? God, could people stretch that event any more than they already are?
-
On the post: Trolling As An Ecommerce Strategy? Online Store Increases Google Rank Via Obnoxious (Perhaps Criminal) Service
Montezuma ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2010 @ 05:19pmIt is time to DDoS this idiot out of business. I am sure that Operation Payback might be interested in helping teach this guy a lesson.
-
On the post: UK Police Officer Accused Of 'Planting' Song Titles Into Evidence Over Shooting
Montezuma ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2010 @ 01:20pmI am a little confused by all of this. I guess I am not following the story correctly, but what I read was that:
A. The officers had a firearm
B. Some asshole idiot was discharging a firearm while drunk
C. The gun leveled the gun, at the officer, and the officer discharged ammunition of his own to protect his life, because, and I am just guessing, the officer thought his life was endanger.
Just what the fuck is going on here? Fuck that police commissioner for not wanting his officers to be safe. As a matter of fact, fuck the United Kingdom for not arming all of their police officers. Yeah, I respect the officers that are actually discharging their required duties, but it sounds like the upper brass is totally useless.
Here, if what I read did happen, the officer would get a "Smith and Wesson Vacation", be cleared, be praised for doing his job and staying safe, get some psychological support(if needed), and go the fuck back to work. In the UK, it seems, using a firearm in defense of one's life is not a justification.
Well, I guess all of the armed officers are for fucking show and everyone, everywhere should avoid visiting, or living, in the UK. I guess that, unless you are protecting someone deemed "important", or some special place from "terrorist attacks", then fire the fuck away. If someone is coming at you with a knife, or some other deadly weapon, then you had better know how to dodge said weapon. Also, you better go all fucking Neo and learn to dodge bullets*.
*Bullet video slowdown not included. -
On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory
Montezuma ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 08:13pmRe: Re: (the fine print no one read)
Verbal agreements are absolutely enforceable in the United States.
-
On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory
Montezuma ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 08:10pmRe: Don't blame blizzard.
Blizzard does not have to do anything that it does not want to.
-
On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory
Montezuma ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 07:40pmOne issues that I have never understood is why any court of law thought that there was any level or reasonableness to bringing cheaters of a game(or the creators of the cheat software) into a courtroom. We are talking about a game, of which has no bearing on real life, in any way, shape, or form, and seeing how there are far more important issues that our courts should be dealing with, the courts should have told Blizzard to go fuck themselves.
Beyond that, it is high time that the courts stop siding with companies and these "shrink-wrap EULAs and ToS". It is time to start realizing that the customers OWN the software that we purchase(which we do) and not that companies are "licensing" the software we pay for, to us. Companies are taking too many liberties today, and the U.S. Government, as well as state governments, are letting them do this.
I really enjoy Blizzard games, but I am to the point that I will never give Blizzard another dime. Until everyone else that is against their actions does this, then nothing will change. Everyone that continues to give them money has no right to complain, until they stop giving them support.
No one ever listens, until their pocketbooks are hit. -
On the post: Ohio Town Refunds 980 Speed Camera Tickets For Only Driving 10mph Over The Limit (Versus 11mph)
Montezuma ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2010 @ 11:37pmI am not sure about Ohio law, but Georgia law(I am an ex-law enforcement officer) actually have a provision that restricts all but Georgia State Troopers from issuing ticket for exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 miles per hour, or less. Regardless, Georgia Troopers will(usually) not issue citations for anything at or under 10 MPH because it is a waste of time(there are no points assessed and, really, there are worse things to worry about on a roadway). Of course, there are caveats that comes with all that I am referring to.
If the infraction occurs within a "School Safety Zone"(where the speed limit drops, usually on highways, but really everywhere) and "residential areas", which is completely ambiguous, as many homes in Georgia are littered along every road(including U.S Highways and major State routes), with the exception of Interstate Highways/"Freeways" and other "controlled access roads". The first agency I worked for(which was a county police department, and yes, I mean police and not sheriff(created through a county police act)) had a policy that we were not to issue citations for anything at or under 15 MPH, when the driver was not a hazard and when the violation was on a four-lane road. Essentially, it just become more convoluted and asinine, but that is Georgia law, "in a nutshell".
Law enforcement has so much to worry with, that dinging drivers for anything at or below 10 MPH over the speed limit(depending on the area) is a total waste of manpower. I can think of, just off the top of my head, (quite literally) 300 different hazards on the roadways(and at least double that in incoming 911 calls) that I would be more concerned with. This does not mean that I never stopped someone for going less than 10 MPH over the speed limit(as any speed, in excess of the speed limit, is probable cause to initiate a stop), but I would do that if there was something more serious occurring and I could not quickly observe anything else that would suffice for probable cause.
I mean, Georgia has a law that allows law enforcement to stop a vehicle for not having a light to illuminate a vehicle's rear tag. In the few years I worked street patrol, I got approximately 600 DUI, about half that number in other various traffic violations and misdemeanors, and exactly 22 felony stops. The law works. -
On the post: Funeral Directors Want To Put Monks In Jail For Offering 'Unauthorized' Coffins
Montezuma ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2010 @ 12:53pmIn Georgia(the State I live in), we are not able to get coffins without going through a funeral home or a "casket store". Hell, even Walmart, now a days, sells coffins, but the citizens in Georgia(and other states) cannot obtain one. So many states seem to continue to force us(the general public) to incur cost that, otherwise, is not needed. It was said by some politician, somewhere around here, that the free selling of caskets could "promote the criminal element" and even promote murder. What sort of retarded shit is that?
For as long as humans have existed, we have been dying and the final moments that loved ones have with the dead and the burial of the dead was not really complicated. A person died, the surviving family and/or friends might or might not have a wake/viewing, then the dead would be buried. There are still many families, that live around my second home, that still bury their dead family members on their own property(which might be going away soon enough), but even those people have to use a funeral home or casket store to obtain a casket.
Apparently, even after a judge struck down the 1991 law on caskets, which opened up the casket market, in Georgia, to businesses other than funeral homes, Georgia just passed another law that requires stores that sell caskets to apply for a license to sell. Why does one need a license to sell a wooden box? Why does our Federal Government, as well as the various states, protect a market that openly takes advantage of those in a grieving state by marking up the products they sell by 200%, 300%, and higher? -
On the post: Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?
Montezuma ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2010 @ 02:14pmI would not believe one word that asshole says. Has much as he has ended up failing in everything else he "promised", there is no way that anyone should ever believe another word to ejects from his face-mouthed audio-projecting/food receptacle.
I find it funny, very funny in fact, that so many people are screaming and telling about the "death of the internet", and really, the further death of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, yet so many of you have failed to see the death of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. So many of you look past us firearm owners, who have warned so many of you that the death of the Second Amendment would be followed up by the death of the First Amendment, but we were ignored.
The difference is that we firearm owners are here to help you guys fight this travesty. We have been fighting, rather successfully, to force the great majority of states(all but one has weapon carry licensing on the books, though not all are "shall issue", but we are working on it). As firearm owners, we hold that the First Amendment is just as important as the Second Amendment, even if the reverse is not true for many of you. Some people might try to say this isn't a First Amendment issue, but is very much is.
You look at the 1934 National Firearms Act(NFA), the Gun Control Act of 1968(GCA), the Firearm Owners "Protection" Act(FOPA; which is anything but), the now defunct 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act(aka, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or AWB, which banned the sale of new weapons labeled "assault weapons", but were not, as they lacked select, or full automatic fire capabilities). Similar laws, which will further dampen our First Amendment rights, are coming. SOPA and PIPA are just the start.