The Boondocks blog, No. 74 for the week starting June 23, 2008.
Violate Zoning in Bethlehem: Go to Jail for Six Months?
As Ford F-150 Changes So Does The Market
Toyota Announces Prices For 2009 Tacoma Pickup Truck
Burn Ban Hearings Tommorow Night at 5-8 PM
Snowmobile Trail Fund Refund is Dead
Rethinking the Country Life As Energy Costs Rise
Hail Storms Raise the Price of Local Produce
Trailers Will Have to Display Slow Moving Vechicle Signs
Observations on the Hearing on Open Burning
Supreme Court Says Americans Have Right to Own Guns
DC's Plan to Deal With Handgun Decision
Albany Media Bias: District Of Columbia V Heller (A Non-Technical Look).
DC. Gun Ban Overturned; What's Next?
News Analysis: Coming Next, Court Fights On Guns in Cities
Energy looks at high energy prices and our future.
Enviroman looks at man and the environment.
Hayseeds looks at politics and life in our nation.
Individual looks at myself and how I'm changing
Outblog is all about my outdoor experiences.
Transit looks at the changing ways we get around.
Truck gives you stories and trips in my Ford Ranger.
That was the previous penalty until the board decided to reduce it.
That of course was the maximum penalty. Regardless though, shouldn't there be some bite to the laws if somebody violates a zoning code to such a degree that it demands such a penalty.
Apple trees and strawberry crops suffered some damage from the recent bad weather that has struck our area.
It's getting skinner and smaller with fewer big blocks and crew cabs as gas prices continue to remain high. Diesel engines also will be less available.
I know I am interested in looking into getting a Toyota possibly next year.
This is quite interesting:
State officials may have thought they were driving a hard bargain when they required Hero Group/Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. to spend $4 million locally before receiving $4 million in assistance as part of an overall package of incentives.
The company is building a $124 million processing plant and headquarters in Montgomery County that will replace older facilities in Canajoharie and Fort Plain.
How hard will that goal be to achieve?
When the plant project was first announced in May 2007, we learned Beech-Nut was so important to the region precisely because it spends so much locally on produce. In fact, onfruit alone, it spends $7 million a year.
So why such a low threshold?
“The issue and the challenge is finding a food processor in the region” for apples, pears and other fruit, a Beech-Nut spokesman said Friday.
Is this a way of attracting a processor to Beech-Nut’s plant in downtown Canajoharie, which will be empty when the new building is completed?
Fascinating.
Many people are saying these are critical for the public to attend:
The Rensselaer County Legislature is urging people to turn out at a public hearing to oppose a proposed ban on the open burning of brush and leaves in communities with fewer than 20,000 residents.
"We believe this law would be overly restrictive for rural residents and in particular be a real negative for farmers and agricultural business. The state should allow the current law to remain in place," said Legislator Lester Goodermote, R-Hoosick Falls.
The hearing on the state Department of Environmental Conservation proposed burn ban will be held from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 5 to 8 p.m., Wednesday, June 25, at DEC headquarters, 625 Broadway, Albany, according to the county.
We all know the Pete Grannis DEC is going to pass the burn ban and that none of this public comment is going to have any effect on the process. But it's important to be heard and maybe some minor changes will be made to the regulations to improve them slightly.
Then again, we know the Pete Grannis DEC is ran by out of control meglomaniac and environmental extremists, that could be seen as the analog to the Bush adminstration on the War on Terror. They don't really care about the law or public opinion, but would rather just force the far left agenda of their regulators on people they know can't fight back on them.
The New York Farm Bureau has this to say about the regulations:
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently released draft regulations that would significantly limit the use of “burn barrels” in New York State. The draft regulations, which are open for public comment until July 10th, would prohibit the burning of household refuse and yard waste on a statewide basis.
The proposed regulations would also impact the agricultural industry. The regulations as drafted continue to allow the burning of some agricultural wastes, such as “naturally grown products such as vines, trees and branches from orchards, leaves and stubble” on farms larger than five acres. Also allowed to be burned are “petroleum fueled smudge pots to prevent frost damage to crops” and individual open fires in response to an outbreak of an animal disease.
However, burning plastic or synthetic materials, such as pesticide containers, fertilizer bags, large plastic storage bags (including bags commonly known as "Ag bags"), tires, plastic grain bags, would be prohibited. Also, the regulations do not address specifically the burning of paper-based feed bags, wood shavings used for livestock bedding, baling twine and other non-synthetic farm-specific waste
DEC’s draft regulations also ignore the added costs of refuse disposal for farmers and homeowners alike. Landfills that accept agricultural plastics, such as greenhouse films or sileage covers, can be many miles away from the farm, costly to use (up to $400 for a truck load) and rigid in how they will accept the materials (a number of landfills require farm plastic to be cut in 5’ by 5’ sheets). For non-farm landowners garbage disposal through a service can cost up to $80 a month.
Make sure to take 2 minutes and fill out this Farm Bureau E-Lobby campaign message on the open burning ban.
Due to crop damage from the inclement weather.
It seems likely that the Assembly Ways and Means Committee will not consider A.11009 Desitito / S.8144 Griffo before the body adjourns as a whole tonight, killing any hope of returning monies from the snowmobile trail fund.
Long commutes are bad thing with high oil prices, particularly if you have a big truck.
With prices the way they are nowadays, it's better to live somewhere near you work, and leave the countryside to people who can find work out there.
NPR looks at the growing popularity of raw milk.
So reports the WAMC NewsRoom.
WAMC Newsroom Reports
Or other markings when towed on tractors to warn vechicles, with A.5023 which passed both houses last night.
Tractors currently are required to display slow moving vechicle symbols that are reflective. Trailers towed on them or equipment like manure spreaders are not required to. This bill changes the law.
As the memo states:
EXISTING LAW: Current law requires the slow-moving vehicle emblem tobe displayed on agricultural equipment designed to operate at 25 mphor less when traveling on public highways.
JUSTIFICATION: This legislation was drafted in response to a tragicand fatal accident involving a passenger vehicle and a tractor haulinga manure spreader. Because the manure spreader was not required todisplay any lights or the slow-moving vehicle emblem, the driver wasunable to see the machine in front of him until it was too late. Thiscommonsense proposal will require all farm machinery, whetherself-propelled or a towed implement, to display the slowmoving vehicleemblem. A farmer can purchase a kit that includes a slowmoving vehicleemblem for less than $20. More than that, this bill would also requirethe Governor`s Traffic Safety Committee to develop a public outreachcampaign to inform the general public of the proper use of the slowmoving vehicle sign and of roadway safety pertaining to agriculturalequipment.
According to the National Safety Council, approximately 15,000vehicles are involved in highway crashes annually. 90 percent of theseaccidents actually take place on dry roads during the daytime, andtwo-thirds are rear-end collisions. When a fatality occurs, the victimis just as likely to be the tractor operator as the driver of thepassenger vehicle involved. If we take the necessary steps to improvethe visibility of agricultural equipment on our roadways, tragicaccidents can be avoided.
Interesting.
The first thing that surprised me was how lightly it was attended. It is possible that most of the lobbyists got in and spoke their piece about how wonderful or how horrible the regulations where in the session they had in Albany in the session they had held earlier in the morning, but still turn out was light and disappointing.
In other parts of the state it seems like turn-out has been higher.
Some county legislators and prominent community members have gone on the record in other regions of the state, clearly opposed to the proposed regulations. There where a few rural residents on both sides of the issue, but nobody really gave a passionate speech for or against the regulations.
Not surprisingly, Laura Height representing NYPIRG was there speaking in favor of the regulations. I'm not sure what stakes a so-called public interest research group has in regulations on open burning, but it's been one of the things they like to do. I'm glad that all those poor over taxed and over-fee'd students are paying their MANADATORY student fee. At least the people who are farmers aren't forced to join the Farm Bureau.
All I'm glad to say is that SUNY Plattsburgh has kept NYPIRG off it's campus.
Senator Bruno had a few of his people attending the hearing – the grassroots of the Rensselaer County Republican party. Too bad Ken Harrington, the often controversial supervisor of Town of Brunswick couldn't make it – he had cows to milk supposedly. That or he knew the DEC didn't give a fuck one way or another what he had to say. Hopefully, though he like many others will submit written testimony.
I have to give the Republican County legislative majority some credit for getting their people out there.
I just wish that more people had attended, particularly those who have an actual stake in the issue – people who burn their trash, farmers who burn agricultural waste, and so forth. We know there are a lot of people out there in both of those boats – travel some 30 or 40 miles away from our cities in our state, it's pretty much to the norm to see backyard burning barrels.
It's possible the many people attended hearings closer to where they live. Indeed, there are relatively few rural areas near Albany compared to other parts of the state.
That's the news that's rocking the world today.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It looks like I may have to relearn a little bit about constitutional law. Here are the holdings of the court:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm fortraditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalistsfeared that the Federal Government would disarm the people inorder to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standingarmy or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congresspower to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearingrights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubiousinterpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposalsthat unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courtsand legislators, from immediately after its ratification through thelate 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, norPresser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rightsinterpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but ratherlimits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used bythe militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in anymanner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealedweapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendmentor state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearmsin sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, orlaws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale ofarms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total banon handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for thelawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutinythe Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, thisprohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defenseof self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutionalmuster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argumentthat the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarilyand capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendmentrights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun andmust issue him a license to carry it in the home.
This would seem to require states and localities to MUST issue pistol permits and the alike, rather then the cumbersome MAY ISSUE that New York State has under the Sullivan Act.
In other words, under this decision, if you want a hand gun and your state requires registration, they must issue you a pistol permit if your not disqualified by a specific legal criteria, in a reasonable time. Some states already have must issue laws.
Legally, it doesn't stop law enforcement from doing much of anything. Courts can still issue Orders of Protection or other orders to prohibit people who they believe would be a danger to own a firearm. Felons and previously committed to mental hospitals are still prohibited from owning firearms, as long as a court has not revoked those statuses. The main thing is a presumption of innocence—one can purchase a firearm unless proven to be a danger rather then one can't purchase a firearm unless proven not to be a danger.
Politically, this will be a big deal. Obama and McCain will have to talk about it in their campaigns, gun control groups lost big at least as far as prestige goes. Now anytime somebody proposes a gun control measure, people will legitimately be able to criticize it for stepping on the second amendment grounds. It will forever change debates on gun control, even if the practical effect is relatively limited.
It's apparent that Jacob over NYSRPA is more then happy with this decision.
Here is what they plan to do:
He said that residents will not be able to buy a handgun and bring it to the city immediately following the high court's ruling. There will be a period of continued legal arguments before a lower court judge to hash out specifics around the high court's opinion, Nickles said.In the meantime, Nickles said, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns. (The city has gun regulations already on the books, which have been largely moot because of the gun ban, but those rules likely would be updated and revised, he said.)
"All handguns have to be registered," Nickles said.
Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.
At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.
Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on automatic weapons.
One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.
Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.
For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.
Interesting.
This blog post that looks at the recent Supreme Court decision is quite interesting.
NPR looks the likely outcome after the second amendment decision.
What about the states that already have laws in place?
I think gun laws that are only slightly less restrictive than D.C.'s may be in trouble.
Technically speaking, all this can say is that this particular law is unconstitutional. And any law lacking any of the important draconian features of the D.C. law could conceivably be legitimate. But we just don't know yet.
Interesting.
That's what the NY Times looks at.
