Daily Digest: Hunting While Baked, Packing More in Sacramento, and Naked NY Politics

1. The REAL Wonder Woman!(although Gal Gadot is also an IDF gal)…I had to look up Balochistan LOL

   • you really knew what a houbara bustard was?

     • I thought it would be some sort of goat or camel.

2. ‘Saying that we had to leave because we were armed in their building.’

   Hey, if it’s good enough for me, it’s good enough for thee. (or, “that shoe sure pinches when it’s on your foot, doesn’t it?”)

   • if law enforcement can play nice with 2nd amendment crowd it is good for both sides. If LE side with the anti-2nd amendment or stand alone, everyone loses but LE.

     I guess LE has to decide if they would rather draw the chalk outline of the criminal or the crime victim.

     Either way, they still have to document and clean up the mess.

   • Last time I checked, those in Corrections don’t make the laws. They also don’t enforce gun laws; that would be Police Officers, not Correctional Officers. And at any time, a Correctional Officer could run into a former “guest” of his/her institution, who may just be holding a grudge (they ALL seem to be holding grudges of some sort).

3. Don’t hunt while baked…

   This is something we’re going to have to sort out legally speaking. If you get high you will test positive for THC long after you are once again sober. So it’s therefore possible to be sober yet still have evidence against you and be convicted of hunting/shooting/possession of a firearm while under the influence.

   It’s not something that can probably be solved on the analytical chemistry side of the equation.

   • coming soon to a road block near you: thc breathylizer.

     • Such a device wouldn’t work IRL It would be great for raising revenue/arresting people but the data it gave you would be just as meaningless as any other way you might try to get it.

       The lipid solubility of THC and it’s metabolites is the problem along with the fact that the stuff doesn’t vaporize the way alcohol does.

   • The question may be moot. People with medical marijuana cards are prohibited by federal law from purchasing firearms. And after the first of the year, because of another inane California law, it will be illegal to lend someone who is not a family member a firearm without processing the transfer through an FFL, with, of course, a back ground check that the holder of the card cannot pass.

     • Fair point.

     • This assumes that the information about the medical marijuana card has actually been entered in the system, as required. There’s a whole lot of stuff that ought to be entered or cross checked in California government databases that aren’t when it doesn’t suit California bureaucrats.

       • 4473 11(e): Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

         Marijuana is illegal under Federal law. It doesn’t matter if you are entered on a list, it is illegal for you to attemt to purchase a firearm if you use cannabis.

   • Oh, that old chestnut of an argument.

     There are different tests conducted to see if someone has used marijuana that distinguish between the different chemical signatures. Police departments generally test for the short lived chemical signatures.

     If however you are looking for a job, it’ll take a month or so for the sample to show clear. This is because they’re testing to see if you use it at all, not just if you’re high at the moment.

     • “Police departments generally test for the short lived chemical signatures.”

       I have no idea where you heard this but it’s simply not true. There is no “short lived chemical signature” in terms of marijuana and it’s metabolites. This is actually true of any narcotic and it’s associated test and alcohol as well. The only question is how sensitive the test is. Cheaper and therefore less sensitive tests will have higher thresholds and therefore not find smaller amounts. Nor will those super cheap methods find tampering with the sample such as intentional dilution or masking agents.

       The trace amounts that (for marijuana) can exist up to a month (three in some people) in your body will pop on a bench test preformed on blood. Which is what they’re gonna run for DUI/suspected gun possession while intoxicated. Newer, “quick” urinalysis and saliva tests will find amounts that required lab testing 15 years ago.

       How do I know this? My dad’s a PhD instrumentation chemist who spent ten years of his life researching this for a university that was under contract for a company attempting to develop better testing procedures for narcotics. In terms of testing, pot is a very, very difficult drug to deal with. In fact, it’s pretty much the hardest drug to deal with which is ironic since it’s the one that does the least harm to anyone.

       They were never able to come up with a test for whether or not someone was intoxicated on marijuana (or one for most other drugs actually) at the time of the test. My dad remains convinced to this day that such a test is very likely an impossible goal to achieve for a variety of reasons. What they did do however was help to bring the cost of that bench testing I mentioned above down by about 90% so you can be damn sure if there’s a question of a serious legal charge they’re gonna run that battery of tests these days because in comparison to the 1990’s it takes no time, costs next to nothing and is literally capable of finding just a few molecules of what you’re looking for in a sample of asininely large proportions.

       Booze is unique in the way that we process it and the fact that it’s key ingredient is fairly volatile and therefore we off-gas it by breathing (divers will be familiar with this concept regarding nitrogen dissolved in the blood) which gives us a fairly good idea of the concentrations present in the blood stream (based on average people and a bunch of other averages but that’s way too far into the weeds for our purposes) in real time. Other drugs don’t do this and therefore are much more difficult, if not impossible, to test for in terms of real time intoxication.

       You can run into this problem with booze too though. If you were ever unlucky enough to be accused of driving drunk a blood test is the absolute last thing you want. That blood test doesn’t test for alcohol at all It tests for the metabolites of alcohol which appear quickly after ingestion and disappear relatively slowly. Like cocaine or other drugs the metabolites will remain in your system for about 72 hours after your last drink. This makes it possible for you to be stone-cold-sober and be accused of having a very, very high BAC. You can literally drink on Friday and test positive for a DUI with a blood test on Sunday morning when you didn’t drink Saturday. If you did drink Saturday you will test even higher.

       The problem with this type of testing in relation to DUI and drinking is that it is 100% bad science. Really, other than the machines they use to run the test it’s not science. It’s hokum, voodoo, bullshit or whatever term you prefer for “totally fucking made up nonsense”. There are way too many variables in play and anyone who knows shit from Shinola knows that even if you eliminated all factors but one the test is still bullshit because of the speed at which the concentrations increase vs. the rate at which they decrease which is based on personal physiology and therefore unknowable to the lab rats that do the testing unless they have a data sheet on you, which would make the test more accurate but really not accurate enough to be acceptable anywhere other than a court of assholes who don’t know/care about how this really works. The labs that do this testing know it’s bullshit but they make money off it. The state prosecutors know it’s bullshit but the state makes money off it. Basically, everyone except possibly some people in the legislatures know that it’s 100% unreliable but hey: the state needs your money.

       • Oh and before anyone comes along and says I’m wrong I’ll tell you why I literally cannot be wrong.

         Say I give you a sample of salt water. Plain NaCL and H20. Can you tell me the concentration of salt in the water for this sample?

         Yes.

         Now, I tell you I took that sample from a bucket that was filled with salt water at some point in the past, let’s say six weeks ago, and ask you to calculate the original concentration with the information you see given in this post.

         Anyone who tells you they can do that is either a liar, a total fucking idiot or both. Personally I lean towards both. If you’re reading this and disagree, believing that it’s possible to know the original concentration, then you need to go back to grade school science class.

         This is a stupid-simple example of the problem we’re talking about. Add a few dozen variables you can’t account for and you start to get to what we’re talking about with drug testing.

       • Yet anyone who has a saltwater aquarium will tell you if you can control for the rate of evaporation, eg have a sealed lid on the bucket, then the solution will have the same concentration then as now.

         But I do understand what you are saying. There are just too many variables.

       • “Now, I tell you I took that sample from a bucket that was filled with salt water at some point in the past, let’s say six weeks ago, and ask you to calculate the original concentration with the information you see given in this post.

         Anyone who tells you they can do that is either a liar, a total fucking idiot or both.”

         Wrong. 🙂

         THC and its metabolites show up in head hair samples and one can make a very educated guess as to the rough concentration (how much consumed per week) and a range of dates by how far from the root the hair sample is taken. It has some variability as hair growth rate can vary by time of year.

         I have more than a bit of analytical chemistry experience in my background, including, but not limited to AA, ICP-ICAP, and flow injection chemistries. 🙂

       • I’m not upset at you for your haste and disbelief, and you’ve obviously already made up your mind on this point so there will be no convincing you otherwise no matter what evidence I have to the contrary.

         All I have to say is that the human body metabolites marijuana in a definite way, creating some very specific chemical components as a result. To determine the level of intoxication of an individual, one must determine the specific chemicals present to induce the intoxication. Are you really telling me that you stay high from one toke for months or years? Of course not! The signatures you are referring to are not the intoxicating ones, but the ones that show previous usage/abuse of the substance.

4. So… You’re telling me the tavor IS a good gun after all, correct? That’s what I got from this.

   • I shot one earlier this week. Seemed fine to me. I didn’t torture test it or anything. I only ran like 150 rounds through it shooting at a range of 50-100 yards. I also did all that shooting without a rest, so I can’t really comment on the true accuracy of the rifle.

     It will certainly enable you to use bullets to kill people dead at 100 yards and I can’t imagine you’d have a problem hitting them at twice that distance.

   • The Tavor is a fine gun. I struggle with bullpups though because I want the center of balance to be between my two hands instead of between my rear hand and my shoulder. A gun’s natural inclination to raise the nose through recoil is much more pronounced if all the weight is in the butt. Manageable with the soft shooting 5.56, still not my preference

     • There are also reload issues. I can see the magwell of my AR without breaking my cheek from the stock making reloads a dream. I can if need be use my magazine as a sort of monopod if I need to get low fast. With the Tavor and most bullpups, you cannot do those things. The overall length reduction of a bullpup is sweet. But at the cost of a Tavor vs an AR, I can buy an AR, pay the fun tax to SBR it, and have monies left over for bullets.

5. So Sacramento County, which contains the state capitol, is friendly to concealed carry. As far as I know, the same is true of San Bernardino County, site of the Christmas attack last year. Sara Tipton had a CCW permit when she lived in California. Clearly, not all of the state is anti-gun.

   • There are no friends of gun people in the CA State Assembly.

     This re-elected asshole, in an entrenched redrawn democrat district (61-33%)
     http://asmdc.org/members/a07/district/7th-district-map

     wrote legislation specifically to stop Sheriff Jones from issuing permits. While AB450 was defeated via Gov moonbeam, it will in some another form, be brought back into legislation.

     Heading legislative assholes off at the pass, Sheriff Jones efforts lowered the cost of administrating CCW’s. Without a pro gun Sheriff elected by the people, Sacramento would be a slave county.

     • Exactly. Brown’s veto message made specific note of the fact tht he would not allow a squabble between the County Board of Supervisors (which wanted to raid the Sheriff’s CCW budget to prevent him from issuing CCWs) and the Sheriff to be the basis for overturning the state-wide discretion of each sheriff to set the standard for “good cause” in his or her county. Which is a pretty good thing, if you live in the right counties. Sacramento is virtual shall issue, as are most of the nine northern counties (other than Placer) north of Sacramento.

   • A California CCW, while good through the whole state, is issued (or not) by the sheriff of the county of residence. Live in the right county and getting a permit isn’t hard. Live in the wrong one? Shan’t issue. Unless you know the right people and make the appropriate offerings, excuse me, campaign donations.

     • So someone with a cali ccw can carry in LA?

       • It would be as valid in LA as a CCW issued in LA County.

         The sheriff thing does make for difficult, though. Had a chat with the brother-in-law’s pastor. Former lives in Riverside County, so no CCW for him; Latter lives a few miles down the road in SB County, we compared notes on what it took to get his CCW vs my TX CHL.

6. Despite the defeat of AB450, (increasing fees of CCW licenses) Sheriff Jones got busy streamlining the payment and renewal process. Shows they’re are good guys in the sea of take away your right to lawful self defense Demo-RAT bastards.

7. Rob Astorino’s only hope of becoming Governor of NY is if Andrew Cuomo gets indicted a month prior to the election. He’s a downstate Republican who already lost once and doesn’t hold the respect of us upstate voters but is also from the wrong party to win downstate. He did as well as he did in the last election because Andrew Cuomo hates everyone who isn’t liberal and isn’t afraid to admit it, and is hated by everyone north of Westchester County, where Rob is coincidentally running the show. I’d like to see the New York GOP find a different nominee, but at this point, does it matter? The borough of Brooklyn has more people than the two most populated counties in upstate (Erie and Monroe, where Buffalo and Rochester are) combined. Unless the state is split from NYC or Cuomo is in handcuffs, it’s Cuomo for another term. So while Rob’s gun show stunt is sorta cool, it’s all for naught.

8. It should be noted that, while Astorino did lose against Cuomo in 2014, Cuomo only carried 16 of the state’s 63 counties (granted, 5 of those counties are in NYC, which is almost 1/2 the state’s population). Astorino carried the rest, and lost by ~500,000 votes…despite receiving absolutely NO help from the GOP (believe it or not, as they were convinced he couldn’t win). Had he received any support from the GOP, he might have pulled an unbelievable upset in NY.

   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2014

   As a side note, if you look at map of NYS after the 2016 presidential election, it is nearly all red, save for a handful of counties. Without NYC, NYS would have been a red state. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a “malignant tumor of liberalism” attached to our arse.

   • Too true. I get so amused when downstate occasionally threatens to secede because upstate is so ungrateful. They get so confused when we say: “Yes, please.” Bless their hearts.

     Similar to the pres-election map, there’s a lovely one showing every single upstate county voting a resolution *against* the SAFE act, including the ones that went pres-blue.

     It is not just different opinions, but downstaters insisting on imposing their preferences about things they do not do, on people far away, they have never met.

     If only there were a term for this.

     • *minor typo correction, NYS has 62 Counties, not 63.

   • Not too mention his running mate, Chris Moss, is one of the, if not THE most pro-2a Sheriff in NY.
     With any luck, they’ll put in another strong run and all the folks that sat on their butts and didn’t vote (I’m looking at you NYS gun owners!) will get with it next time around.

9. There you go, Robert; A real Israeli supermodel!

10. Was driving by the Westchester County Center the other morning and saw those signs. I’ll be going to the show. Not to buy anything, but just as a raised middle finger to those who want to shut it down.

    Okay. I’ll probably buy something.

11. when I was learning to drive airplanes, I learned that if you smoke a doobie on Tuesday, you can’t land an airplane worth a hoot until Friday. I understand the philosophy of denying gun rights to marijuana users, and I choose gun rights over the desire to spark up a joint.

    • I think it’s wrong on either ground. The chemical affects everyone differently. There’s no need to ban or outlaw things, you need to educate and equip people with information to make good decisions.

      • Even though I don’t do weed anymore, I’m in favor of legalization, because I’m a left leaning libertarian gun enthusiast, and I don’t like the government telling me what I can and cannot do. But based on my own personal experience, I have to agree that my cognitive functions were impaired for a few days after using. Not enough to prevent me from driving a car, skiing, or paddling a kayak, but enough to make me avoid more complicated activities, like skydiving, scuba, or guns, where alertness and memory count.

        The thing that sets guns apart from scuba and skydiving is that if you mess up the former, you might get someone else killed. If you mess up the latter, you’re the only one that dies. So I would encourage any responsible gun owner to abstain from shooting sports for a day or two after using weed. But I would never make it illegal for a weed enthusiast to own a gun.

Comments are closed.