Bipartisan opposition to Flock cameras has led to communities abandoning the controversial technology.

 

A Flock camera. Politico/AP. 

Bipartisan opposition to Flock cameras has led to communities abandoning the controversial technology. Politico. In July alone, 20 communities have ended the use of the cameras, which track vehicles and record their license plates with AI. Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized the cameras saying that the potential for abuse by the government is too high, though they disagree who the targets would be. Flock says their cameras don't violate civil liberties and help solve crimes, but some local leaders have said the cameras were not as useful as sold. Efforts to expand Flock devices beyond fixed locations, such as by using drones, have increased the backlash. 

My Comment:

The opposition to Flock cameras has to be one of the most bipartisan things I have seen in America today. Nobody seems to like these devices and it's one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats (and Libertarians) agree about. Everyone hates these cameras. 

Why? I think most people understand they could be used against them. Republicans fear that their travel habits could expose to the government things like trips to church or the gun range. They also fear that such cameras could restrict their freedom of movement if a civil war were to happen. 

The Democrats fear that these cameras could track people leaving the state for an abortion or track folks like Antifa. They also fear that it could be used to track and deport illegal immigrants, despite the fact that the federal government does not use these cameras in the DHS. 

And both sides are right. There was a case in my state where a man was traveling to Michigan and was tracked by these cameras. This was used as a pretext to pull over and arrest him as they claimed traveling to Michigan was probable cause for a stop. He got arrested for marijuana possession, which is legal in Michigan but illegal in Wisconsin. 

And that's just government over reach, these cameras are being abused in other ways. There have been many cases where folks have been tracking their spouses or exes with these cameras. There is no law enforcement excuse there. 

What does get me about Flock is how it seems to have been a final straw when it comes to Americans. Folks hate these things and are aggressively vandalizing and taking them down wherever they show up. Folks are showing up to city council meetings and are successfully lobbying to get these cameras taken down. And there is even talk of jury nullification for the folks taking down the cameras! 

I've got mixed feelings about that. I do view these cameras as a civil rights violation, if they are allowed to continue, do we even have a 4th Amendment right? I know it's generally accepted that you don't have a right to privacy while in public but I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted the government to be able to track your every move. So I am glad that these cameras are getting a backlash. 

But why not everything else? Flock cameras are hardly the only thing recording me when I go to work. There's ring cameras on my neighbors houses, people filming while I drive by, regular surveillance cameras on the highway and my phone is tracking me too. And sure, it's not the government doing those things, but then you get things like Digital ID which has bipartisan support. So if the government tracks your movement, it's a problem, but if they track you online it's suddenly ok? 

Still, I am glad that there is a backlash. America is in the position where we seem to take two steps back for every one step forward and I think people are sick and tired of the way the government is behaving at the local level. It doesn't have to be this way and the opposition to flock cameras is refreshing. 

However, will things actually change? Who knows? For every city that abandons Flock, a few more pick it up. I think it's probably going to require legislation or a major court case in order to actually stop these cameras, and I don't know if there is the political will or a legal argument that will actually end this. 

President Trump has denied that US munitions stockpiles are depleted and vowed to punish leakers.

 

US President Donald Trump. BBC/Getty.

President Trump has denied reports that US munitions stockpiles are depleted and has vowed to punish leakers. BBC. Reports earlier in the week said that the US was running low on certain important weapons, including long range attack missiles and anti-air defense missiles. President Trump denied reports that he confronted Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for the supposed shortfalls. Trump also said that the leakers were "treasonous" since information on American weapons stockpiles are classified. 

My Comment:

This story is a mess on multiple levels and it's very hard to determine what the actual truth of this story is. I do know that all of the reports are from anonymous sources and none of them provided any documents that prove their claims. It's also very clear that Trump still has many enemies in the defense department and they absolutely could and would make things up to hurt Trump and his Administration. 

On the other hand, it's also very clear that a lot of weapons have been expended in the Iran conflict, most notably the anti-air defenses, like Patriot missiles and THAAD. They are our premier anti-air defenses and the Patriots were already low, due in part to the previous Iran conflict, our support of Ukraine and sales to allies. I would also believe that we have used a lot of our long range missiles, the ATACMS and the new PrSM weapons, which we never had many of in the first place. 

But even if the reports are true, Trump is also right in that we are in no way low on weapons. We still have plenty of Tomahawk missiles and our air and naval assets are, if not unlimited, enough to conduct a war for a very long time. Plus, stockpiles are expected to draw down during a conflict, especially one where we have launched as many major attacks as we have in this one. 

What is clear is that President Trump is angry about these stories. And he is absolutely right to be. It's clear that Iran was happy to hear this and though they probably have a more accurate ability to judge US firepower, having this story out there may give them some false hope that they can outlast the United States. And it's going to complicate any possible peace deal. Indeed, news broke today that Iran is making unreasonable demands for peace again, and these stories might be why. 

Keep in mind that information warfare is real too. By any rational standard, Iran has been utterly destroyed in this conflict and has no real hope of winning the war. But there is a lot of noise out there about how Iran is going to outlast the United States, and this release is absolutely going to fuel that. 

So will the leakers be charged with treason? Almost certainly not. Finding them will probably be difficult in the first place, assuming the media isn't making the sources up. But even if they are, treason charges are very unlikely. Constitutionally, treason is extremely hard to prove and this conduct doesn't reach that standard, plus there is unlikely to be two witnesses willing and able to testify. They absolutely could be charged with espionage, but treason? Not unless we change the constitution. 

What is my take on US stockpiles? I think we have drawn them down quite a bit, but not so much that we can't conduct war. I would believe that we are out or basically out of PsRM's since they are new weapon that hasn't been produced for very long, but I think we should have enough of the other weapons cited for a longer conflict. 

Still, I do think that even if it isn't a problem now, it could be if the war lasts much longer. If, God forbid, we are still talking about the conflict with Iran by the end of Fall, or even worse, next year, then yeah, we will probably run out of these weapons, maybe sooner if the conflict escalates. It's a good non-political reason to try and end the conflict, but the problem is that the Iranians are insane. 

Regardless, the real losers here are Ukraine. Even if we do run out of some weapons, America will be fine and will be able to continue the war. But Ukraine? They are basically out of Patriot missiles, and that is a huge problem for them because Patriots are the only weapon that even has a chance at shooting down Russian ballistic missiles. Regardless of the actual numbers, we absolutely have used a lot of our patriots and the cupboards are bare for Ukraine, and that's probably true to a lesser degree for our ATACMS. 

Of course, our support of Ukraine is a major reason that our stockpiles have been depleted. The weapons we gave to Ukraine did deplete our stocks and though those gifts aren't going to be equal to what we have used in the conflict, it's unquestionable that if we had a more sane Ukraine policy over the past decade, we would be in better shape than we are now. Indeed, I warned about this very possibility when we started giving Ukraine these weapons. 

As for the Iran War, I do think it will end sooner, rather than later. No matter how much the media and the Democrats want Iran to win the conflict, they absolutely cannot do so. This report may have delayed a deal by a few weeks, but I do think that it will end. And, of course, Trump can always throw up his hands and unilaterally end the war himself. 

A federal judge rules section of the National Firearms Act regulating suppressors and short barreled rifles is unconstitutional.

 

Firearms, two of which are equipped with suppressors. New York Times/Reuters. 

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating suppressors and short barreled rifles is unconstitutional. New York Times. The NFA was always justified under tax law, but once Congress removed the $200 tax stamp for suppressors and short barreled rifles, it was no longer constitutional. Gun rights groups sued after Congress acted and this is the first victory against the NFA. The Judge did stay the order to give the defendant, the ATF, a chance to appeal the order, though it is not known if they will do so. 

My Comment:

Some clarifications are in order here. This ruling didn't suddenly rule the NFA act null in void. It only applies to the parties to the lawsuit, which includes several gun rights groups, most notably the Gun Owners of America, manufacturers and dealers, most notably the Palmetto State Armory, and 15 States that join lawsuits, including Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming. 

For an individual that wants to buy an NFA restricted item, your options would be to either join one of the gun rights groups or purchase from one of the companies that were involved in the lawsuit, like Palmetto State Armory and Silencerco. And even then, it would have to be legal in your state, some states bar possession of all NFA items, even ones that are legal to own federally. And, of course, you would have to pass the normal background checks you have to do when you buy any new firearm.

Also keep in mind that this doesn't go into effect just yet. The judge gave the federal government seven days to appeal and until then, nothing changes. And there is a good chance that the government will indeed appeal.

There is a chance they won't. The Trump Administration is generally pro-gun and Trump himself signed the bill that caused the lawsuit in the first place. They have even filed lawsuits against gun laws in blue states so it's very possible they will just let this ruling stand. 

However, there is also a good chance they will appeal. It's possible the intuitional inertia will force an appeal. The lawyers at the ATF might not want to give up the power they get from the National Firearms Act and won't want the order to stand. And, given this is the deep state we are talking about, it's possible someone will go rogue. 

Regardless, I think this is a victory. The rules against suppressors and short barreled rifles were always nonsensical. Indeed, suppressors are a safety feature that protects hearing and some countries, notably France, require their use. And short barreled rifles? You can buy a "pistol" that is a de facto SBR anyways, so the regulation is pointless. Especially after last week's incident where a man helped stop a mass shooter with a suppressed FN Five-seveN. 

Time will tell how this plays out. I do think that this portion of the NFA will eventually be destroyed. I guess it would be easy for this specific ruling to be reversed by Congress putting back the stamp tax, but that seems unlikely given the political realities of the foreseeable future. I do hope that the entire bill is removed eventually, I consider the regulations on destructive devices and fully automatic weapons to be just as tyrannical. 

Spokane wildfire arsonist suspect had been linked to two more fires.

 

A statue that survived the wildfire. BBC/Getty.

The suspect in the Spokane wildfire arson has been linked to two more fires. BBC. Aaron Farinacci, a 37 year old who had a conviction for manslaughter for killing his own father, was found kneeling near the site of the blaze. He had a lighter and matches on him. The fire he started, the Autumn Lane fire, is still uncontained and destroyed 700 homes and forced 60,000 people to evacuate. No fatalities have been recorded in the three fires near Spokane, but there are some people that authorities have not been able to contact. The suspect was initially let go but fire inspectors discovered that the cause of the blaze was human activity. 

My Comment:

Wildfires are a major concern lately, especially with much of the country facing dry conditions, both seasonally and this year specifically. There have been major fires in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. They have caused billions of dollars worth of damage and cause quite a bit of human misery, as I can attest to with the horrible wildfire smoke from Canada that choked Wisconsin. 

Wildfires are an inevitability. Many of them can happen with no human involvement whatsoever, and they can even happen in forests that are properly managed. However, human activity is a major cause of wildfires. Some of this, like many of the wildfires in Canada and California, is due to human incompetence. Things like not managing forests at all, or failing to clear trees that are near major powerlines, are a major cause of fire. 

But what is starting to worry me are these arsons. Spokane is not the first city to face major damage from a human started wildfire. The Palisades fire that wrecked thousands of homes and killed people was allegedly started by a person (a mistrial was declared in the case and a retrial has been scheduled). And now we have this fire as well. 

It makes me concern that a meme is forming. Disturbed people can see that absolutely devastating damage and, given the right weather conditions, they can do the same thing. It might be why the media was lying about the cause of the Palisades Fire when it happened, they really didn't want the idea of arsonists starting wildfires like this to spread.   

What about this case? I think it's a strong circumstantial case. Carrying matches and a lighter when you are a smoker isn't uncommon, especially for a smoker, but doing it right where a major wildfire starts is at least confirmation that you have the means to start a fire. And witnesses saw him kneeling near the site if the fire. Unless there is some kind of exonerating evidence put forth at trial, it seems very likely he will be convicted.  

What is frustrating is the fact that Farinacci was out in the first place. 12 years for manslaughter for killing his own father over an argument about washing the dishes is obscene. He did serve his time and was released from probation, but still, if he had gotten a longer sentence for killing his own father, he wouldn't have been on the streets in the first place, which may have prevented this fire. 

Embattled Congressman Max Miller (R) facing calls to step down over domestic abuse allegations.

 

Congressman Max Miller. Official portrait. 

Embattled Congressman Max Miller, Republican from Ohio's 7th district, is facing calls to step down and withdraw from the race after serious allegations of domestic abuse have surfaced. Politico. Miller was married to the daughter of Senator Bernie Moreno, Emily Moreno and is in the middle of an acrimonious divorce. Miller was accused by Moreno of spraying her with scalding water and pointing a gun at her head while also breaking the collarbone of their daughter. Miller has denied the accusations. In addition to Senator Moreno, other prominent Senate Republicans have called for Miller to step down before Wednesday's deadline for a new primary. 

A new report from Axios says that President Trump has expressed skepticism of Miller's chances in November.  Trump reportedly didn't call for Miller to drop out but said that his reelection chances, against Democrat Brian Poindexter, were "not looking good". President Trump has remained neutral in public comments about Miller.

My Comment:

There's nothing worse than a he said she said situation. It's very hard to tell if the allegations against Miller are legit or just the result of an acrimonious divorce. There is some documentation to favor both Miller and Moreno's claims. The evidence in both sides isn't conclusive and there isn't a smoking gun for either side. 

Which means that folks are conflicted about this. If the allegations are true, than there is no reason for Miller to be in the House. Indeed, if he pointed a gun at his then-wife, he should be in prison. And he's already faced allegations of abuse from a woman before, former White House Secretary Stephanie Grisham also accused him of abuse, to the point where a settlement was made. 

But there is, of course, the idea of reasonable doubt. Folks do indeed lie during these kinds of horrible divorces and some of the allegations are ridiculous (spraying someone with a sink hose is not going to cause any damage). And there is no iron clad proof that Miller actually did anything wrong. 

What I do know is that these allegations are turning what should be a solid Republican seat in Ohio into one that Democrats could conceivably win. Polling has shown that Brian Poindexter, Miller's Democratic opponent, is close to overtaking Miller in the polls. And the only real reason for that is folks think that Miller is guilty of the accusations against him. 

It's telling that someone named Poindexter, who looks like the name, even has a chance in a safe Republican district. Poindexter is another attempt, like Graham Platner in Maine, to get a "manly man" into office to try and win back Republicans. Normally it wouldn't work at all, why would men vote for a party that hates them? But if the choice is between someone who may have beaten up two women and injured a child? I personally would vote for the Devil himself over even the most moderate Democrat, but a lot of folks aren't going to make that trade. 

Miller has to drop out by the 5th if there is going to be a primary and I think the Republicans have until the 10th to replace him. Miller, for his part, seems determined to stay in the race. He thinks he can still win, and I think there is a chance, folks might not believe his ex-wife. But the fact that several senators are calling for him to step down and the fact that Trump has expressed doubt makes me think that he could be forced to leave, much like Graham Platner was in Maine for the Democrats. 

Finally, I have to say that if I had married the daughter of a Senator, I'd be treating her with kid gloves. If these accusations are even close to being true, than Miller is crazy. Bernie Moreno is a popular member of the Senate, and though he's a freshman Senator (he replaced Democrat Sherrod Brown), he's not a man I would make upset. Indeed, the fact that he ended up speaking out at all is pretty damning and it alone makes the accusations more credible.