Happy Third Blogiversary

Three years. That's how long the Ten Ring has been up.

Yosemite Sam and I haven't been posting as much as when we started. We told the world what we had to say and don't want to repeat ourselves too much.

We're certainly not going away though. You'll have to put up with my long essays and Yosemite Sam's rants. You'll have to tolerate our posts from the NRA convention this year. Maybe we'll even start repeating ourselves and post more often.

So, wish us a Happy Third Blogiversary.

Guns and Criminals

Alphecca posted a story about a violent felon who wants to use the Second Amendment to beat a gun charge. Commenters brought out arguments I’ve seen time again:
*Even criminals have the God-given right of self-defense;
*Criminals should not have unfettered access to guns;
*If someone can’t be trusted with a gun, they should be in jail.

This issue and arguments go right to the heart of our legal system. It puts a criminal in jail based on the severity of his crime, not what’s in his heart and mind. Punishment is based on actions. If a criminal steals a purse, we lock him away for say a year. That criminal may come out of jail with a true attitude adjustment and never steal again, or he may come out a worse criminal. We can’t tell which way that person will turn.

We know our system is imperfect, but the idea of locking away someone until he’s no threat is quite disturbing to me. We would have to rely on government to determine how long someone is a threat to the rest of us. I don’t want government to have that power. They don't have a crystal ball and I can't imagine a worse way to limit freedom.

That leaves us with the question of how to protect society. A violent felon will get a weapon by any means necessary. Therefore, the best defense we have is self-defense. We should make concealed carry permits easier to get or better yet adopt Vermont-style carry nationwide. We should be able to carry anywhere a police officer can carry—i.e., cops can’t carry a gun in jail and neither should we.

Violent felons have a legitimate right of self-defense, but they will abuse any tool—knife, club, gun—that they possess. As a society we should say certain criminals have proven themselves too violent to own a gun legally and bar them from buying a gun where the rest of us shop. It’s an expression of our outrage at their actions.

There is a selfish reason why I support restrictions. I don’t want to go to my favorite gun store and watch some over-muscled guy with prison tats and a pallor picking out a gun. He may want it only for self-defense, but….

At the same time, there should be a limit to any restrictions. First, the criminal has to have committed more than one truly violent crime. Then, if the released criminal stays honest for five years (or ten or whatever) all restrictions are lifted.

I know many won’t agree with having any restrictions at all and I am ready for the rotten tomatoes coming my way.

Merry Christmas

Yosemite Sam, Cooper the wonder Basset, Tummy the cranky ole cat (you've never met him), and I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas. We're here in a thawing New Hampshire getting ready for breakfast and other Yuletide fun. Hope yours is special and here's a blast from the not so long past:

State Gun Laws and Winter Wonderland

I'm already tired of winter and it doesn't begin officially until tomorrow. I already feel hemmed in and just not wanting to deal with slick streets, slippery sidewalks, digging snow off the car, and the thousand and one things you have to do when you are living in New England.

New Hampshire, where I live, is a gunnie paradise, but the weather sucks. I keep wondering if I can move to other places with good gun laws and good weather. So far, my career won't allow it. Perhaps after Heller/Parker, if the decision goes our way and is far-reaching enough (dream on), I could stop having to choose places to live based on laws that curtail a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Not yet, but perhaps.

That's one of the many things unfair with the gun laws. One state will curtail your rights, but drive across the border and there is no curtailment. I'm all for federalism, but there are just some things that are fundamental and owning a firearm, or choosing not to do so, is one of them.

I am working at home today trying to get a giant project off my desk. There's a snowstorm going on right now and I am glad I had the option to work here. I used my Treo's camera to snap a picture of the snow. My car is the one that is parked in front of the two vans. Yes, it's a lump of snow.

We're being socked this year and it's been cold. Needless to say, Yosemite Sam and I are not doing any trap shooting like we did last December. See you all later.

Winter--You can have it!

Where I am Now

Well, let's see here...it's been a week plus one day since I posted last. A lot has happened that I didn't discuss. There was a shooting in a church that a female, former cop, now concealed carry permittee stopped with extreme prejudice. She is a true American hero or heroine whatever is the accurate term du jour.

Me, I've had my head down and working away. Yosemite Sam and I have a lot on our plates right now. For one thing, we are remodeling our master bathroom. We're not expert carpenters, painters, tilers, and everything else we've been doing. That means we're doing a good job, but a slow one. It's really affected how often we get to go shooting. It's been a while and I hang my head in shame.

For that reason and others, hunting season was a bust for us as well. This remodeling needs to get done, though. You see, whoever built our condo carpeted the bathroom about ten years ago. You can imagine what that was like. Who the hell ever thought that was a good idea? We pulled up a corner of it a few weeks ago and found some wet rot on the tile surround. We had to reinforce/rebuild the surround. Fun. We're almost done though and there will be before and after pictures up here one of these days.

Another thing, I'm on travel right now and using a hotel computer to type this. I don't have unencumbered access, so please forgive the stream of words and perhaps a miSpelaling or two. Work brought me down here to Maryland. You know, it's a lot warmer here than New Hampshire where we have snow and ice on the ground.

I better run now. Catch up with you all later.

A Law Professor and I Agree on Predictions Only

Where do I apply to become a law professor? Here’s what University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein had to say about the pending Heller decision:

“This spring, the Supreme Court will probably issue its first major ruling on the Second Amendment. Here's a prediction: Dominated as it is by Republican appointees, the court will adopt the individual-rights interpretation.…

At the same time, the court will recognize that reasonable restrictions are permissible - and thus will energize, rather than end, the national discussion about the regulation of guns.”

I said this about two weeks ago:

“I predict though that the Court will support an individual right to own firearms and I think that it won't be all that close (maybe 6-3 for instance). The reason it won't be close: the Court will add language like "...subject to reasonable regulation for public safety..." or some such wording. Anti-gun justices will see how useful such language will be.

Then, it will be off to the races to write laws that allow individual ownership while still infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms.”

Sunstein came to his conclusion from the opposite side of gun freedom. He doesn’t like the idea that the Supreme Court may very well agree that there is an individual right to own guns. However, we came to the same conclusion that the Court decision will likely include "reasonable" restrictions.

I can’t speak for Sunstein, but for me, the government will never give up its ability to regulate guns. It may agree that we can own them, but it will always try to determine what kinds of guns may be owned, how guns will be stored, when and where they may be used, what types of people may own guns, and so much more.

In fact, I believe that if the Bradyites and their partners had long ago agreed that gun ownership was an individual right, by now we would all be able to own only single-shot rifles, double-barrelled shotguns, and the only handguns would be Olympic-style free pistols.

If we do win the Court battle, we can never let our guard down.

Rioting in France

As you know, there is more rioting in France. Two years ago Paris' northern suburbs erupted and youths of indeterminate religion and origin (wink-wink) burned cars and generally made royal nuisances of themselves.

This time around, they are using shotguns and the police believe the "youths" are trying to get more guns. About 100 cops have been injured and about a third of them from gunfire. So far the police response has been restrained.

This is a truly serious situation for France. I can't pretend to be an authority on France, but Yosemite Sam and I have traveled there several times. I took more than one French history course in graduate school. I can read and speak French (not as good as when we traveled there--use it or lose it). So, take my following observations with those grains of salt.

France has a seething problem with its immigrants (no shit Sherlock). Unlike some European countries, France has a clear road to citizenship. For one thing, you learn the language, which is no problem for immigrants from Francophone North African countries. But, the French expect you to adopt Frenchiness, for lack of a better term. That's what so many of the North Africans cannot do.

Most, if not all, unassimilated youths are Muslim and won't adopt French concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity. They don't want to give up their cultural notions of women, gays, Jews, and their ethnic identity. They have a hard time getting and keeping work. This is not
necessarily true of their parents who came to France to work or set up shops. They wanted to assimilate, but their children want to keep the outward trappings of their cultural and religious identity.

In turn, this has led a sizable minority of the French people to turn against the immigrants. While we were there, we heard certain Parisian suburbs described as homes of the black beasts. We saw graffiti carved deeply into a park bench in Lyon, "Interdit aux arabes" (forbid all the Arabs).

This situation is only going to get worse in France. The youths don't want to assimilate and many French people don't want them to assimilate. Two years ago, they burned cars. Now they're shooting at police. The question is, when will the French military (if they still have one) shoot back?

The situation in not pretty and the French are perfectly capable of channeling their inner Robespierre. If they do, it will be another one for the history books.

On this issue, I have a confession to make that will shock many of you. I actually like France and the French. Yosemite Sam and I have been all over the country. I met and talked with some very good people--the ones in Normandy in particular. It saddens me that they haven't been able to solve their immigrant youth problem and I see no good solution.

It will be awhile before we return and I hope there's something worth visiting when we do.

Torchwood--A Gunnie TV Show Review

Lately, Yosemite Sam and I have been watching a BBC import, Torchwood, set in Cardiff, Wales. We’ve been able to see every episode thanks to our cable company’s On Demand feature. It’s entertaining and surprisingly gunnie friendly.

First, it’s a spin-off of Doctor Who. If you don’t know about the Doctor, I can’t explain it here. Suffice to say it’s still on the air and still popular. Yosemite Sam grew up with it and is more of a fan than I am, but I really like Torchwood.

Its lead character, Captain Jack Harkness, was in a few episodes of the recently reincarnated Doctor Who. He was a con man who ended up more heroic than not and comes from Earth’s 51st Century. Through various permutations, he can’t be killed, but is stranded on Earth beginning in the late 19th Century. By the time of the TV series, he’s head of Torchwood Institute Three which investigates alien incursions and related.

That’s enough background, let’s get to the gunnie stuff.

One character, Gwen Cooper, is a police officer who observes Torchwood a little too closely and becomes a member herself. Torchwood members are expected to defend themselves with guns. Gwen doesn’t know how to shoot, because she wasn’t an armed constable. Harkness teaches her in an entertaining session. She fears the gun at first, but finds out she can shoot well and loves it. A surprisingly pro-gun message given the BBC’s track record on gun control.

Captain Jack carries a World War II era Webley Mark IV in an old leather holster with a flap. Unlike the Doctor who refuses to use a weapon, Captain Jack has no problem shooting someone who needs it. In one episode, he shoots a very evil woman several times at close range. BBC didn’t spare the stage blood and squibs.

A British show that allows self-defense is interesting. Of course, Torchwood members are not average citizens, but they’re not the police either. The Torchwood Institute is beyond government and beyond police.

It’s not all gun-friendliness though. In one episode a very scared teenager wounds Gwen with a shotgun thinking she’s one of his deadly neighbors. However, he used a pump-action shotgun illegal in Britain, so it begs the question of how did the character get it (it’s unpossible to get something that’s illegal isn’t it?).

The show is not for everyone. It’s darker and more adult than Doctor Who. For instance, Jack thinks the whole idea of sexuality is a quaint but primitive concept unknown in the 51st Century. There’re intimations that he’ll have sex with any sentient being that walks on two legs. Still, it’s entertaining and nice to see a Webley on TV.

Superme Court Says "Let's Hear It"

Take a deep breath, 'cause here we go. The Supreme Court will finally hear a Second Amendment case, the Heller/Parker case. You all know what it's about and probably already read that the court granted cert.

There's a lot at stake with this one. I predict though that the Court will support an individual right to own firearms and I think that it won't we all that close (maybe 6-3 for instance). The reason it won't be close: the Court will add language like "...subject to reasonable regulation for public safety..." or some such wording. Anti-gun justices will see how useful such language will be.

Then, it will be off to the races to write laws that allow individual ownership while still infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms.

Of course, my predictions have been off the mark before (last time I chose lottery numbers, for instance), so take it with a grain of salt.

National Ammo Day/Week 2007

Monday is the official “National Ammo Day.” I support it even though it’s not blessed by whatever committee declares a day a Day. Blogger Kim du Toit started it and selected his birthday as the first Ammo Day.

The idea is to buy ammo on that day or during that week. There’s no reporting on what people buy, no public celebration, no “official” declaration of Ammo Day, and no real support in tradition. With all of these apparent negatives, why do I support it?

One good reason is there should have been such a day officially declared many years ago. The Federal government is responsible for having a well-regulated militia. The militia is the whole body of the people who can defend the nation. It’s basically what’s found in Federal law.

The government also used to encourage shooting through its Office of Civilian Marksmanship. They supplied guns, ammo, built ranges and supervised riflery matches. Its successor, The Civilian Marksmanship Program, is a quasi-private group that’s still a great source of M1Garands, M1Carbines, runs some matchers, and sells ammo, but is a shadow of what could have been. The government would rather scrap its guns than sell them.

The whole idea behind civilian marksmanship was to ensure Americans could shoot. That way, in time of national emergency, civilians could be called up and would need less training to be able to meet defense needs.

Today, shooting is seen as a dangerous skill and as something that the “right” people never do (unless it’s skeet with $40,000 shotguns). The government certainly didn’t help alleviate this attitude.

Instead, they banned cosmetic features on certain types of guns, put up import restrictions, and more. They should have been sponsoring more school outreach, more gun sales to the public, more urban ranges, and other programs. After all, we all know that the way to break down hoplophobia is to take someone shooting.

So I support National Ammo Day because it’s something our government should do in the first place. There are other reasons. It’s a way to get more ammo in private hands and that’s never bad. It’s a way to reward retailers who carry ammo. Most importantly, it helps us improve our own marksmanship whether it’s bullseye pistol shooting or action shooting, plinking or long-range competition, or whatever type of shooting you prefer.

Go out this coming week and help your local ammo dealer.

Hunting in the New York Times

The New York Times had a surprisingly (for them) fair and balanced article on hunting. It was in the travel section and it covered the impact of hunting on a small Maine town. Jackman, Maine is a village of about 700 souls. Many of its businesses cater to and rely on hunters. The article profiled them and generally didn't call them a bunch of rubes and hicks (there was an element of condescension, but low-key). It's worth a read.

Even more interesting are the comments. As of this writing there are 104 comments, so it struck a nerve. Of course, there's the usual "killing is eeevvvvillll" stuff and the counter-and irrefutable argument that we all kill to eat (even vegans). A few commenters went all anti-gun. Some are quite entertaining in their own hysterical way.

More Fear of Inanimate Objects

From SayUncle we get the latest PSH alert. A gun cleaning kit and empty box of shells was found in a classroom in Baylor's School of Medicine. School officials evacuated the school and closed it until today. Even worse, it was used. They searched the school for a gun and eventually someone came forward and explained that he had accidently left it in the room after he had done some target shooting off campus. At no time, did he bring a gun on campus.

Guys, this school is located in Houston, Texas. I lived there for a few years and it's not the Texas I remember. This type of crap is happening all over and not just in New York, New Jersey, Masschusetts, Illinois, or California. Hoplophobia is getting worse among its sufferers. Be sure to read the comments to the newspaper's article.

(Sorry for the lack of posting, but work has become a big stinky cauldron into which I pour my time and energy and don't see much progress.)

Will Hollywood Ever Learn?

No, Hollywood will never learn. They’ll never understand that they can’t make money by pissing off half the country with a political thriller that stacks the deck against America. Their latest flop is “Rendition.”

It posits that a probably innocent man is kidnapped by the United States and sent to another country for interrogation involving torture. Reese Witherspoon plays his tormented wife and Jake Gylllenhall plays a CIA analyst who overseas the interrogation to his horror. Both well-known actors cut their usual fees to perform in this movie.

The script tries to hit all the leftist notes about the evil lengths our government will go in the “War on Terror.” It cost just south of $30,000,000 to make. Its cast is a roster of famous names including Meryl Streep. Given its topic, its advertising, its wide release on 2,250 screens, and blatant appeals to leftist sensibilities, you’d think it would be burning up the theaters. It’s been out for two weeks and its made about $7,800,000. The re-issue of Tim Burton’s “Nightmare Before Christmas” has made more money.

I hold no brief for the government and realize they make mistakes and do bad things sometimes. However, I’m put off by “America the Bad” messages. How about showing the good our nation has done in the world? How about showing the evil things other nations and groups do (airliners v. skyscrapers ring a bell)? I don’t know when Hollywood will get the message, but keep voting with your feet.

Ruger 10/22, A Confession

The other day, Say Uncle did a show and tell on his Ruger 10/22 rifle. He was responding to Bruce of No Looking Backwards (I still call his blog mAssBackwards) who realized that October 22 would be a good day to show his and others Ruger 10/22s.

I would love to show you my Ruger 10/22, but I can't. I have a confession to make. I don't own a 10/22. I've got a Remington FieldMaster pump-action .22 rifle. Yosemite Sam has a semi-auto Sears .22 handed down to him from his father, but neither of us has a Ruger 10/22.

Is that a gasp of amazement I hear out there? No, it's a gasp of amazement coming out of me. The 10/22 is a fine rifle and belongs in any gunnie's collection. One of these days I will have to buy one and thus end my shame.

More on a Gallup Poll

I posted about a Gallup Poll last week that showed that support for rights to own handguns is the highest it’s ever been since the question was asked. In 1959, only 36% of people polled supported handgun ownership and 60% would ban handguns for “ordinary” citizens.

This has puzzled me since I wrote it. We view anytime before 1968 as being a Golden Age for gun rights. In terms of formal laws I guess it was. You could buy a gun in a hardware store with no questions asked. You could order a 20mm Solothurn rifle from a magazine advertisement and the U.S. Mail would deliver it to your door. There seemed to be less crime then even though guns were more available.

Now we have organized groups who want to ban guns and legislators who try to make this happen. We must undergo an FBI check to buy any firearm. We have gun crime at a higher rate than in the 1950s. One would think that the poll numbers would be reversed, but they’re not. I think there're a few reasons for this.

First, some (not all) World War II veterans came home with little use for handguns. Most of them had been trained as riflemen first and foremost. The rifle was your best friend—if you were infantry. In fact, some military planners hoped the M1Carbine would replace handguns.

I can give one example of veterans having little use for handguns. My father flew bombers during the war and was issued a Colt 1911A1, which he carried in a shoulder holster. He told me that he could have kept his pistol, but he was tired of carrying it. To this day, he’s never had any interest in handguns although he owns rifles and shotguns.

If veterans with this attitude had been polled, they might be part of the 60%.

Second, you didn’t have the very real threat that your handgun and maybe gun rights could be taken away. Such a thought was “pie in the sky” at best. A person who didn’t like handguns might agree to ban them in a poll believing such a thing was impossible. That same person might give a different response if they felt it could actually happen. It’s part of mankind’s paradoxical nature.

Third, gun control may have been in the air. Most of our gun laws were passed in 1968, only nine years after the 1959 poll. That’s not a lot of time. During the 1960s we had terrible political assassinations using guns. These events may have consolidated a feeling that already listed.

I’ve done little research into public opinion in 1959. I’m flying by the seat of my pants here and could be all wet, but maybe not.

A Blog Milestone

The Ten Ring reached a blog milestone sometime this weekend. I checked Sitemeter and found 225,347 hits. That may be what some of the big bloggers to on a good day, but it feels good to have had that many people check into our blog. Thanks to all those who came in for a visit and another thank you to those who keep coming back.

Historical Comparisons in A Gallup Poll

Wow, two posts in one day--must be a slow day at work. Anyway, I checked out a couple of blogs this morning and noticed some good news from the wonderful people of Gallup Polls. Arms and the Law mentioned that fewer Americans support gun control after 9/11. Call Me Ahab discusses the numbers in more detail. And they are good news for us--the Brady Bunch must be crying in their corn flakes.

I took a closer look at some comparisons with past and present support for handgun limitations(here's the link and scroll down to Number 21 about 2/3s of the way down the page). There's something that jarred me.

Today, 68% of the people believe there should not be a law limiting handgun possession to police and other authorized people. That leaves 30% of Americans (with 2% on the fence) that would infringe on our rights. Surprisingly, in 1959 the numbers were almost exactly reversed; 36% of the people thought that handgun ownership should not be limited to police and other people while 60% would ban handguns for the average citizen.

In fact, since 1959 public support for handgun ownership is the highest its ever been tracked by Gallup. You could've knocked me over with a feather.

Turning Good New into Bad

I try to keep concentrate on gun issues, but every now and again, I have to expand the blog's horizons. I'm here at work and I was doing some morning news reading (don't tell the boss).

I read an article in the New York Times that discussed the affect more immigration enforcement was having on a large meatpacking plant in North Carolina. The author is Stephen Greenhouse and he laments the impact this enforcement has had on the employer and the illegal immigrants.

Greenhouse tells us sob-stories about Hispanic themed stores having less business, about a woman whose husband is facing deportation, about how illegal aliens may have helped formed unions, and about how they were harder workers than Americans who replaced them.

I don't know about the work ethic part of it, but the article mentions a lot of good news couched as bad news. Here's an example, "Some companies have reluctantly raised wages to attract new workers following raids at their plants." The key words here are "reluctantly" and "following raids." The good news is that companies raised their wages. I thought this was a good thing.

Greenhouse goes on to complain about a woman who now works at the meatpacker and faces a long commute in a company van (she pays a weekly amount to ride it). I don't like my long commute, but this woman more than doubled her hourly wage. That's not a bad thing. Further, Greenhouse had to admit that the plant has hired more black people to replace the illegal immigrants.

The plant has a high turnover rate and new employees complain of sore muscles. But, there's no guarantee that work will be easy or even rewarding. Someone must do the mind-numbing hard work and we all can't get paid to discuss Jacobean poetry.

I am amazed that a New York Times writer could try to turn good news into bad (that's called sarcasm people).

Privacy, Cars, and Guns

From Arms and the Law I see that a Federal judge has struck down an Oklahoma law that ruled companies could prevent employees keeping a gun in their cars if parked on a company lot.

I admit to some mixed feelings about this, as did some of you who commented on the post. Private property should not be subject to arbitrary government rules. I didn't like the state of Massachusetts saying that I had to have a gun license to keep my own gun in my own house. Believe me, that law and virtually all of Massachusetts’s gun tyrannies sucked. The more I have thought about this, though, the more I have to come down on the side of Oklahoma's legislature.

Here's some history. A few years back large employers like Weyerhauser and ConocoPhillips decided they wanted to prevent gun violence in the workplace. They knew that some employees had carry permits and others brought guns to work in their cars during hunting season. They used obscure parts of employee handbooks to order surprise inspections of cars belonging to randomly selected workers. If you refused a search, you were fired. If they found a gun in your car, you were fired. It affected a number of employees regardless of how well they performed or how long they had worked for the companies.

Oklahoma lawmakers thought this was unfair and that it violated the Second Amendment. They passed a law to stop this practice, the same law that has been struck down. Of course, the state could appeal, so the story is not over yet.

As I said, I've thought about this and I must come down on the side of being able to keep a gun in your own car even if it is parked in a private lot. Especially so the lots of huge private bureaucracies employing thousands of people and that may be the only employer of note in a city. There's no comparison between a huge company and a homeowner.

My car is an extension of my home. If I visit a gun-fearing friend and I'm carrying a gun, I will respect his wishes and lock my gun up in my car even if it is parked on his driveway. While he owns the driveway, I expect to be able to store my gun during the visit. If I visit a small store that has a no guns allowed sign, I also expect to store my gun in the car parked in that store's parking lot (ignoring the fact that I probably wouldn't shop there in the first place).

If we allow anyone to state that you can't have a gun in your own car while it is parked in their lot or driveway, we make our self-defense and gun rights meaningless. You won't be able to run a few errands while carrying a gun. You won't be able to stop at a store and buy supplies on your way to a hunting spot. You won't be able to store your gun in your car while you're at work and then holster it after work.

If enough businesses promulgate such rules it will become impossible to carry a gun for self-defense no matter how many permits you have from state governments. My property rights do not end when I park my car in someone's lot. My Second Amendment rights do not end just because a private party wishes them gone. My right to self-defense does not end because some private nanny wants me to be defenseless.

I will cede this though, I think a company, store, or person does control what happens inside their buildings. Carrying a gun when they wish you to refrain does violate private rights. Storing a gun in your own car even in their lot is not the same thing.

I hope that this decision is reversed.

Arbitrary Government

Via Kim and Say Uncle, we have the story of Ronald “Bo” Ward, an owner of a barber shop who needed a zoning variance in order to stay in business. His request was denied and Mr. Ward exclaimed “Ya’ll have put me under ... I’m out of here,” and then shot himself in the head.

On the surface, most people will say: That seems to be an extreme reaction to a minor setback, but the first thing I thought was that I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.

You see, I work in the land development field and I deal with these zoning boards all the time. Massachusetts zoning boards. Massachusetts has 351 towns and each town has different rules and requirements for zoning. Thus, we have to keep track of the rules in every town in which we do business. This doesn't even take into account the restrictions caused by various environmental regulations like the River's Act.

All that is bad enough. But now we get to the real fun.

For example, a client wants to add a pool to his property in one of those W towns in the western suburbs of Boston. OK, this shouldn't be too hard. Look up the Zoning rules for the town, check if he has wetlands on his property, apply the rules and regulation, design the pool accordingly and then we're done.

Right. Not so fast.

We go to the board and the board mentions that our client's house is on a Scenic Road and that his landscaping needs some work. Well, I can't seem to find the zoning rule that mentions landscaping, but the client agrees in order to work with the board and to facilitate approval of his pool.

Time passes.

Another meeting.

Now the board has issues with our client's lighting. Lighting that can't even be seen from the road. The board wants low environmental impact lighting with a low wattage.

Now our client is getting pissed.

He wants to get his pool built before the end of summer. We draw up lighting plans that show the negligible impact of our client's current lighting arrangement. The board still wants the low impact lighting and now wants tighter development restrictions on our client's property.

Restriction that would guarantee that our client would no longer be able to add improvements to his property.

Now you might say: Why doesn't our client sue the town? Well assuming that our client has enough funds to afford a long, protracted law suit, the outcome would still be far from assured.

The town doesn't care, they have a nice tax base to defend any potential law suit. So our client finally gives up and decides to try again later, even though, according to the town's zoning rules and regulations, he had a legal right to build a pool on his property.

This is arbitrary government at its finest.

I have seen scenarios like the one outlined above, over and over. It does not surprise me in the least that a few people reach their limit and push back.