I suddenly realized that January comes to an end on Sunday. One month into 2010. It doesn’t seem like just another year in a sequence of stagnation. This one is different for some reason. It’s very cold and windy, uncharacteristic even for this area and season. The air is damp and it cuts. The sun is rarely seen. I suppose the gray outside should reflect sadness but that’s not the case. There doesn’t seem to be sadness that I see. The little critters outside the window are not noticing anything either.

As I gathered up my gear this morning, making ready to go out in the dark, something made me stop and pick up my big Bowie knife in its Southern Comfort sheath. There is something stark about a big knife, like it is really threatening all on its own. A hit with it would make a difference in anything.  Perhaps 2010 took a hit from the Bowie and January is getting ready to fall out of it. When the year began, it was just some more days of winter. And then, things began to change or began to happen or just began at all. Very strange when parts of life just shift and you realize that things just are not the same as they were. Events occur, people appear, thoughts are opened up and examined. Those can all be good things and do help to break some of life’s periods of ordinary. But, just in the past week, time became extraordinary.

I find myself (as usual) trying to understand why certain things happen and certain people choose to be in our lives or not. Then “it” – meaning realization – appears out of the confusion to strike with the obvious but impossible answer. Things did not just happen at random, someone didn’t just unthinkingly decide to be here, though whether they remain is of course, up to them and not yet known by me even if I hope that they do stay near. This shift in life, the events of now, the alignment of so many factors just has to have been controlled or guided by some other force. I wonder if that is God.

I have always been of the impression that God would spend His time in South Dakota, as that is where I would be if I were Him. Occasionally, He’d glance across the plains in this direction, but there really wasn’t any kind of communication going on. Life was life and God wasn’t really involved. Now I suddenly find out what happens when He is directly involved and right here right now. That is a lot more power than the aura from a big knife or the muzzle end of a large-caliber handgun.

And as I attempt to grasp this possibility, I remember that what is happening is what I once asked for. I don’t know whether the outcome will be a good thing or a bad thing, but I am responsible for it because I asked for it. Not just a different life, but a real life. And I have learned something, too: Angels have red hair. Really.

Thinking that perhaps the absence of emails built on bullshit and intending to cause panic had perhaps slowed down, I see that I am wrong since a new one has jumped up of late. It seems the U.S. Senate is considering the ratification of a U.N. Treaty. According to the email, once this happens, soldiers from distant lands wearing blue berets will come and get all of our guns. Because, the writer shrieks, the Treaty will nullify the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Of course it will, as I am supposed to agree while watching a pig fly past the window.

Why anyone believes this crap is beyond my comprehension, but since we have invoked the Constitution, might as well hear what the official readers of said document have to say about Treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court “has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty.” In 354 U.S. 1, Reid v. Covert, Justice Black states in the Court’s opinion that:

"Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S.258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

It seems quite clear that a Treaty cannot override the Constitution. So, I will not waste my time watching for blue berets and their wearers trying to gather up guns. Hopefully, I’ll see no more flying monkeys either.

Thanks to “Cold War Scout” for the case citation and bringing this to my attention.

I have had to type this so many times over the past six months that I thought I’d put it out here and just link to it. For all of you who have received the email where you have to list your guns on your tax return due to Senate Bill 2099 and get all kinds of licenses and register all your guns due to House Bill 45 (also called the Blair Holt Act), and it’s all “verified by Snopes,” the email is bullshit.

That email is worded where there are just enough pieces of truth that the entire pile of garbage in the email appears correct, too. I can’t recall where the email originated, I think with some little gun rights group that wanted to stir up some donations. If you get it, delete it. Please don’t forward it around. Everyone else has already done that.

Since I have a copy of the accursed email here, I’ll just beat on it one point at a time. SB2099, supposedly introduced on February 24, 2009, did not and could not have existed. Why? Because in February, the Senate was only up to bill number 1600 or so. Bills get consecutive numbers as they are introduced. If one were to have done a search for SB2099 through the Library of Congress a few months ago, there would have been no record found. I know, I looked for it. There may be a SB2099 at the moment but it doesn’t matter because it wouldn’t be this particular SB2099. Remember that we are at February of last year, so it’s the 111^th congress playing. Was there a SB2099 in the past that mentioned the Internal Revenue Service and guns? Yes, introduced February 24, 2000. Then ain’t now. That old bill would have required gun registration, but it died in committee with only two cosponsors. So, looks like Mr. Email Writer kind of fucked up by about ten years.

The other bill, HR45, was introduced in the 111^th congress. I’ve heard it’s been introduced in the past, too. The bill would require licensing of firearm purchasers and a lot of other ugly stuff. Introduced on January 6, 2009 by Bobby Rush, an Illinois representative (typical of Illinois politicians, I think), the bill has no cosponsors and was referred to the “Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security” on February 9, 2009 where it has collected dust ever since. Since this bill was actually introduced in the past year and is full of anti-gun drivel, it gives the email’s author somewhere to point links that really work. The bill can be found, opened and read in screaming terror. Or, ignored.

Again, please do not copy, send or forward the email when you get it. It really needs to just go away. If you want to panic over something, there are other things out there in the world probably deserving of panic. This email is not one of them. I do not know whether the person at the top of the email, a realtor in Orlando, Florida, is actually the author of the email, but if someone happens to know who originally did write it, please shoot him.

A week ago, I bought a Jeep. Yes, one of the little vehicles with the soft top on it. This one makes the fourth Jeep I have owned, but the last one was about 25 years ago. I did quite a bit of research on the new Jeeps before buying and so far, have been satisfied with the purchase. I have seen people do amazing things with Jeeps, the little four wheel drives seem to be able to go virtually anywhere. I was a passenger in one out in Wyoming when the driver decided to climb up a cliff (at least it seemed so to me). I glanced out the passenger window at a goat, who said “you can’t do that.” But, we did it, ending up on top of a bluff. The driver was the one who did it. He’d been running Jeeps off road for most of his life and was obviously very good at it. His advice was to look first and then go slow and practice a lot – don’t get in a hurry.

Since I have Jeep number 4, I should be a great Jeep driver, right? Wrong, of course. I have to either practice a whole lot or get some instruction or tips from somebody, otherwise I risk denting a lot of sheet metal. Owning something doesn’t make me an expert with it. I have a nice Bowie knife and could probably do well against the average idiot but would be in real trouble against someone who has extensively studied knife fighting. That situation is correctible, as with most other things. I’ll get some training from Suarez International on knife skills and be in a better position to use one if needed.

Please don’t be one of the many, many people who think that if you own a gun, then you are somehow instilled with all the knowledge needed to use that gun. Realistically look at your skills and then decide what needs improvement and how to best do that. Some things can’t be improved, that’s life. I’m old, my knees hurt, I am not going to run five miles every day. So, I am not planning on outrunning the bad guys. That means it’s additionally important that I have other skills because I have to offset the lack of that one.

I’m passing along some information from Gabe Suarez, the CEO of Suarez International, who says it’s not verified but worth considering. If he says it’s worth considering, I’d agree. It doesn’t hurt to overlook any “oh, that’s being paranoid” thoughts if it might save you from potential harm. At the least, be a bit more alert. Anyway, it seems that there is a very high potential risk for some kind of attacks at shopping malls within the United States and not necessarily only in highly populated areas. The speculation is the attackers would be, of course, terrorists of some type. I’d think Muslims, since they are the terrorists of choice lately. Nothing else is known about this risk.

What does this mean? That depends on what you want it to mean. For me, it means virtually nothing, since I don’t go to shopping malls. If you do, it might be prudent to do as Gabe suggested and carry a full-size pistol that holds a lot of ammunition and several spare magazines. Also, if a fight starts, you don’t have to get involved. Get you and your family out. You are not the police and you don’t have to stop all the bad guys. That does mean if you are in a crowded mall with your family, you’d need to have your family close to you and not all over the place where they couldn’t be quickly located. When exiting, keep your gun covered up so any police outside don’t shoot you. They won’t know you are a good guy.

Another option is to start a new “tradition” for this Christmas and either skip all the gifts and marketing altogether or order some books or something from Amazon.com, avoiding malls and crowds completely. I’ve been doing this for many years. It might be because I am terrified of a terrorist plot to attack a shopping mall. Or, it might be because rather than wade through throngs of people for hours, I’d rather sit at home with a Bourbon & Coke and push buttons on a computer for 20 minutes. I believe I know which is my answer.

Finally, you can ignore all of this. It’s likely nothing will happen wherever you go. That’s the thing about any kind of risk. It’s possible, but probably unlikely. These things float around on the internet all the time. Why pay any attention to this one? Your choice, and I’ll be home anyway.

As I am watching snow on a radar screen about 100 miles from my location, I ran through a short list of things in the motor vehicles to be sure that they are equipped for winter travel. Yes, this is a rather boring and usually ignored subject, but once you slide your car down into a ditch and have to wait hours for a tow truck, you might then reconsider whether you should have perhaps considered at least a couple of these suggestions.

First are the obvious, like having your car in decent shape, as full of fuel as possible, a spare tire, a jack, some gloves, a shovel, the basics. Then, when it’s daylight, figure out how to change a headlight bulb and get a spare bulb. These can be a pain to change so don’t make yourself have to learn it in the dark. If you carry a decent flashlight, fine. If not, get at least a Maglite for the car. If you are lucky enough to be near a “real” Army surplus store, grab a wool blanket. Wool will keep you warm even when wet. If not, you can look online or just dig up an old blanket and stash it in the car. A small container about ¾ full of water can go with the blanket (leaving some space will keep it from blowing apart when it freezes and you can thaw it out with body heat) and some kind of snacks. Just alter this list as needed if you’re driving a big 4x4 as perhaps you’d want a wagon jack and some tow chains as well. Since the whole world carries a cell phone, I’m thinking you do, too, so you’ll have some means to call for assistance.

And, while there still are good Samaritans who may stop to help you, use reasonable judgment – they may not be good, of course, and if you’re in a car, they are just not built like they were twenty years ago. There’s not much underneath that will take the strain from a big truck dragging a car. Basically, if your vehicle does not have tow hooks, use a lot of caution. Finally, be sure that when the weather is really fierce, ask yourself if where you are going is really worth the risk of going there in the first place. If at all possible, sometimes it is far better to avoid the risk entirely and just stay home.