Archive for December 17th, 2010

Argh.

Friday, December 17th, 2010

Headline in the LAT: “Wine and online sales: It’s easier to buy a gun than merlot”.

First paragraph of the article:

In most states, ordering a gun online is perfectly legal. As is ordering pornography, cigarettes and ammunition. A bottle of merlot, though, could land you in jail.

Okay. Let’s take a close look at that. Yes, in “most states”, you can order a gun online. Unless you, yourself, have a Federal Firearms License, the gun has to be shipped from a registered dealer to another dealer who also has a FFL. (You can order from a private party; however, that person has to find an FFL near them to process the transaction.) Once the gun arrives at the dealer you’ve selected, you have to go in and fill out a Form 4473. For the benefit of my readers who have never purchased a gun, here’s what a Form 4473 looks like. The purchaser has to fill out everything in section A.

Once you’ve filled out the Form 4473, the dealer then still has to call in to the National Instant Check System (NICS) to determine if you’re allowed to go through with the purchase, denied, or delayed. (There are some exceptions to that; for example, because I have a Texas CHL permit, dealers are not required to make the NICS call, because I’ve already been vetted by the State of Texas. I still have to make arrangements with a FFL to receive the gun for me; the only thing my Texas CHL permit allows me to bypass is the NICS call.)

In addition, you’ll typically end up paying shipping on the gun you ordered. Dealers also don’t generally do these transfers for free. Depending on how good a negotiator you are, you may end up paying the seller’s transfer fee to their FFL (if the gun comes from a private party and not a dealer); for sure, you’ll end up paying a transfer fee to the dealer who receives the gun for you, has you fill out the 4473, and does the background check. $25-$30 is what these fees average in the Austin area.

As far as ordering pornography; who does that these days? As far as cigarettes, I think the author needs to do a bit more research on that particular subject. Here’s a hint: you may not go to jail, but you’re likely to end up being billed for taxes. And as I recall, New York and several other states were attempting to ban credit card companies from processing online cigarette orders, and trying to persuade the Postal Service and other carriers to ban cigarette shipments.

I don’t, as a matter of fact, disagree with the author’s general argument; online wine sales are excessively complicated, largely due to laws that were put in place to protect liquor wholesalers. However, neither his argument nor the credibility of the LAT are helped by misrepresenting facts.

Speaking of books.

Friday, December 17th, 2010

I’m finishing up The World That Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers, Schemers, Anarchists, and Secret Agents. This is the kind of book about which Howard Waldrop would say, “I spent a whole bunch of time doing the research for this story, and then, after I finished, some guy came along and wrote a book that had all the stuff I dug up already in it.” Or words to that effect, anyway.

I’m a bit hesitant about posting a review before I’m done (though right now I’m just reading the endnotes and bibliography). However, Reason did a pretty good review of the book in their January issue: here’s the link. I agree with Brian Doherty that is annoying to see Butterworth play up the anarchist movement/radical Islam angle in the introduction, and then drop it for the rest of the book. The connection is worth considering, but I think there are reasons why it breaks down. For starters, the anarchist movement was never a movement that involved state actors, while radical Islam is. I’ll leave further discussion of that point up to the jihad correspondent

The Decline of Western Civilization. (Part #N of a continuing series.)

Friday, December 17th, 2010

FarmVille For Dummies. Really.

We're doomed.

Random notes: December 17, 2010.

Friday, December 17th, 2010

I’ve already sent this to Jay G. so he can up the Dead Goblin Count (Edited to add: yeah, me and about 11 other people), but I think it is worth noting here: bad guys try to hold up a jewelry store.

Castillo pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot the gunman dead. Then he grabbed a shotgun from his office and engaged in a shootout with the other two armed robbers.

When it was over, all three robbers were dead — and Castillo, though shot at least three times, was still standing, having successfully defended what was rightfully his.

Adding to yesterday’s discussion of Bob Feller, Daring Fireball had a couple of good tributes: here, and here. (Edited to add: even more from Gruber.)

Blake Edwards: NYT. LAT.

There was a story I wanted to link yesterday, but forgot about: I previously mentioned the case of General John D. Lavelle, and the presidential decision to grant him a posthumous restoration of the star he lost. Unfortunately, that decision seems to have become bogged down in politics. Worse yet, Kissinger seems to be behind this.

“I am opposed to the proposition that it was ordered by President Nixon. That argument is totally false, demonstratively false,” he added. “If General Lavelle thought he had other authority, I do not know. I cannot comment on that.”

Attorneys for the Lavelle family, however, say that White House tapes show that Nixon did issue the orders, and that Kissinger was well aware.

Might not hurt to give your Senator a call.