The Boondocks blog, No. 76 for the week starting July 7, 2008.
Ban On Burning Ruffles Feathers
Strict Scrutiny for the Second Amendment
VW Confirms Stoppage of Plans to Build a Pick-up for European Market
Delaware Board Steamed About Burning Ban
Beware the Giant Hogweed and Wild Parsnip
The Second Amendment and Orders of Protection
Cows On the Loose in Reservoir State Park
What Did the Framers Have in Mind?
Paterson Says No More Snomwobile Trail Fund Raids
Ag Incubator Farming's Future?
Clubs Laud Funding of Snowmobile Trails
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.
The Daily Gazette looks at the proposed open burning ban and does a good job at it.
McMahon is among a segment of the state’s rural population wondering why the state Department of Environmental Conservation plans to expand a governmental ban on open burning.
The proposed rule would essentially prevent farmers and other rural folk from burning a pile of leaves or other debris on their own land.
The years-long debate over open burning, typified by calls for an end to the use of “burn barrels,” got an extension earlier this week.
Because so many people came out to public hearings that started in June, the DEC decided to extend the hearings and comment period before sealing the new rule on the books.
People in municipalities with more than 20,000 people are already restricted from burning debris outdoors — the new rule would extend that restriction, with modifications, throughout the state.
This part of the article points our the serious flaws with the proposal—including the cost, limited options for disposal, and so forth. After all, in many counties like Schoharie, there are only two transfer stations to haul trash to—often 20 miles or farther away.
If debris that’s currently burned in a pit or barrel has to be turned in as recycling or garbage, it will cost money.
According to DEC estimates, a rural town of about 1,000 people could expect its costs for solid waste disposal to increase by as much as $12,155.
The solution to that issue: raise taxes, charge fees at transfer stations or both, according to the DEC’s proposed rule.
With an increase in the amount of household waste, brush and land-clearing debris, communities may need to upgrade transfer facilities they use to collect them, according to the DEC.
In the rural town of Palatine in Montgomery County, Supervisor Sieds Jonker said getting rid of rubbish isn’t easy for residents.
“It’s not like they have a regular garbage pickup, it’s not like living in town and it’s going to be very hard to enforce anyways,” Jonker said.
Morris said the state Environmental Protection Fund provides money for solid waste management grants and matching funds to help municipalities deal with the costs.
There could be some work needed to streamline the disbursement of funding and ensure municipalities know what’s available and how to ask for it.
Morris said it’s unlikely the DEC, with its minimal enforcement staff, could make much headway enforcing the expanded ban.
And they are doing, much like King George of England administratively because they can't move the legislature to do it. At least that's what an emboldened jackass—I mean Jackson Morris of Environmental Advocates says.
The state Legislature has not acted on prompting from environmental groups, and the state agency’s rulemaking is seen as the next best way to reduce the practice, Morris said.
Of course, as the previous paragraph by Jackson Morris, who claims to be worried about seeing those backyard burning barrels on his way to work, then he should move to the city. I'm sure his car pollutes far more then taking public transit. I don't think I've seen a burn barrel on my way to work on the bus from suburban Delmar.
And the reality is this proposed ban won't do much in the grand scheme of things but empower NIMBYs to snipe at their neighbors, and encourage their neighboors to plan to apply manure slurry heavily on their fields on nice days, when the have a wedding planned.
Morris said it’s unlikely the DEC, with its minimal enforcement staff, could make much headway enforcing the expanded ban.
But putting a rule on the books would give recourse to residents who are concerned with a neighbor’s open burning. A rule outlawing the practice would give a resident grounds to call authorities and complain.
“The fact that citizens can take it upon themselves and pursue those actions would improve under those regulations,” Morris said.
Fantastic. Truly. You can burn your trash, just don't piss off your neighbor, or face neighborhood wars like never before seen.
That's what NYRPA's director argues for in a PoJo LtE. This is an interesting read.
Press should not scoff at 2nd Amendment
The Supreme Court struck a major blow in defense of individual liberty and common sense by affirming the Second Amendment as a specific enumerated civil right. The immediate reaction from the Journal editors is that such a right must be limited ("Gun rights need checks," July 1). It was a totally disgraceful, but entirely predictable reaction.
The American fondness for firearms drives the elitist media nuts. You wouldn't dare print such an op-ed targeting freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom to peaceably assemble.
The same standards of strict scrutiny currently applied to laws pertaining to the First Amendment must also be applied to laws related to the Second Amendment. Nothing less is acceptable.
Jacob Rieper
Vice President
Legislative and Political Affairs
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association
Pine Plains
That is an interesting point. While argumentatively, the first amendment doesn't appear as "dangerous" as the second amendment (words or Assembly don't directly kill—but neither do firearms), there are certainly times when government should and does limit freedom of speech and assembly—all with in the limits of the constitution.
Even with strict scrutiny, lawmakers have the potential to make sensible restrictions on firearms—like those convicted of felony or involuntary committed—when there is a clear and present dnager. They also would be able limit the use of firearms not designed for the protection of common defense or hunting purposes, like military-grade weapons.
As wikipedia describes Strict Scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny is the second most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law (the most exacting standard, "super strict scrutiny," is used to review prior restraints outside of the Near v. Minnesota exception). Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or policy that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.
There are a lot of things yet to be resolved on this issue.
The Volkswagon Robust is dead due to high oil prices.
This article appeared in the River Reporter.
The Town of Delaware wants to keep its burn barrels.
The town board is on record in opposition to the proposed state-wide ban on burning that is being put forward by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The reasons for its opposition, which were outlined in a letter to the DEC, were many.
There’s the landfill. “Even with recycling, the increased garbage resulting from residents having to dispose of papers in their trash rather than burn-barrel them will be substantial,” the board said.
Worth a read.
They can be as bad or worst then exposure to posion ivy.
Horticulture experts say use extreme caution: both can cause the skin to lose it’s protection against the sun. The result, if oils from the plant are not removed, are blisters that appear 24 to 48 hours after exposure.
Karen Lee of the Hudson Valley Poison Education Center in Sleepy Hollow said treatment should begin immediately after exposure.
“If sap gets into the eyes, the result is likely to be irreversible blindness,” she said.
She said anyone handling the plant should wear disposable gloves, long pants and sleeves and protective eye wear.
“If the sap gets on the skin, the area should be cleansed with rubbing alcohol to remove the sticky residue and then washed with soap and water,” she said. “Even after washing it away, you should cover that part of your body and seek medical treatment.”
Ontario Ag Dept gives these pictures:
Giant Hogweed:
Wild Parsnip:
I know at my parents farm we have some cow parsnip around, which like yellow flowering wild parsnip also is a photo toxin. So I now know to beware when I go out in the fields, particularly if I plan to be cutting it. Not as nasty as wild parsnip or giant hogweed though.
As long as owners have 3 acres for horses in residential areas.
The Times Union had an article this morning about the issues relating a gun case in Schenectady where Terry Kindlon is trying to challenge on second amendment grounds.
Lamar Erwin of Schenectady attempted to purchase a firearm in July 2007 and filling out the ATF 4473 Form answered "NO" to 12h: "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or childof such partner?"
He previously had been subject to an order of protection relating to a domestic incident with his wife in February 2007. That matter was plead down to a disorderly conduct charge, and he paid a fine. However, the Order of Protection continued in force for a year (until February 2008) and was not nullified by the plea and dismissal of the original charge.
According to form ATF 4473:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subjectto a court order that: (A) was issued after a hearing which the person receivedactual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimatepartner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimatepartner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includesa finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety ofsuch intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use,attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partneror child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. For purposesof this prohibition, an “intimate partner” of a person is: the spouse of the person, aformer spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person,or an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person.
Assuming that's all true, the order was granted , and it was made clear that the Order of Protection was in effect for the year and not just through the successful disposal of matter, then clearly it's an open and shut case—he is guilty of violating the law. But we don't know that.
Did Erwin get a chance to participate in the hearing—or was it just a customary order of protection of a witness—and why did it not disappear when the case was disposed of through a plea? If there was a hearing, and it was determined that Mr. Erwin posed a threat to his wife, then clearly he should have known the order was in effect and that there was good reason for it. If he contested that fact, he had the right to challenge it in court.
At any rate, I'm not sure if it's even a second amendment question—reasonable restrictions are still allowed after the Heller decision.
And this just in from Lewiston:
A few loose cows are causing some headaches for police in Reservoir State Park.
Several law enforcement agencies are trying to corral some bovine wandering the park, and trying to keep them from making their way into surrounding roadways.
Lewiston Police have been on scene since about 9 a.m., and have had to put down one of the three cows.
The two remaining cows are reportedly in the area of Upper Mountain and Military roads, an area close to Interstate 190 and the Robert Moses Parkway.
Police said they don't know where the cows came from.
...
Stanley Fish and the second amendment.
A look at high food prices and wasting food.
He also stated this morning in a press conference that pigs could fly. Instead, he's promising to spend most of the monies raised from snowmobile registrations for actual snowmobile uses.
The clubs protested to Paterson and state lawmakers in April when they learned $1 million in registration fees paid to the state by snowmobilers that was supposed to be earmarked for trail maintenance had been used instead for general state expenses to help close this year's budget gap.
On Thursday, Paterson said from now on all registration fees paid for by snowmobilers will be used to the benefit of the sport.
"Our state's network of snowmobile trails are an important tourist attraction and economic engine, particularly upstate," he said in a statement. "We undertook a careful review of our grant payment procedures and determined that we could improve that process."
We will wait and see. I don't have great faith in the state keeping up their promises with snowmobiles or anything outdoors in our state. Keeping the nurses and teachers well paid before everything else, is always the priority in our state.
That's what Greene County in proposing to do with a farm incubator where people can play with growing stuff.
From the Daily Gazette:
“It’s really good news,” said Rory P. Whelan, a spokesman for the New York State Snowmobile Association. Whelan said the association praises Paterson for increasing state trail aid from $2.87 million to $5.34 million while also guaranteeing that all snowmobile registration money will be dedicated to supporting the trail system and related needs.
“We commend Gov. Patterson for taking this action to guarantee that [money] dedicated from snowmobile registration fees will be spent specifically on snowmobile trail maintenance and safety,” Mike Fischer, president of the association, said in a news release.
“This is great news for the state’s 100,000 snowmobilers and the upstate businesses that rely on the $1 billion snowmobiling adds to the state’s economy,” Fischer said.
Under revisions in the funding program announced Thursday, Whelan said the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which now spends about $1.1 million from registration fees to maintain about 2,500 miles of trail on state lands, will reduce its share of the fund over the next three years by a total of $1 million.
That money will be used instead to help fund local trail maintenance grants administered by snowmobile clubs, which tend to the private and state trails in their various territories.
Whelan said snowmobile association officials were assured the reduction in funding for the state-owned portion of the trails will not have an adverse impact on maintenance of those networks.
Great. Hopefully the governor will hold true on his promises.
