Tag Archives: regulation

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

…to start locking banks out of SWIFT (no, I don’t mean as a matter of National Policy).

A little-noticed lawsuit details a hacking attack similar to one that stole $81 million from Bangladesh’s central bank, saying cybercriminals stole about $9 million last year from a bank in Ecuador.  The case suggests global bankers haven’t been sharing critical information to prevent such heists.

And

A third attack, from December 2015 at a commercial bank in Vietnam, was detailed last week….

The banks aren’t telling SWIFT about these attacks, either.

A spokeswoman for Swift said Thursday that the network was never told of the earlier hack.  “We need to be informed by customers of such frauds if they relate to our products and services, so that we can inform and support the wider community,” said spokeswoman Natasha de Teran.

Bad security and victim banks didn’t tell SWIFT, despite SWIFT warnings:

We specifically remind all users to respect their obligations to immediately inform Swift of any suspected fraudulent use of their institution’s Swift connectivity or related to Swift products and services….  The security of our global financial community can only be ensured through a collaborative approach.  To this end, it is essential that you share critical security information related to Swift with us.

Not Only a Correct Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

…but a correct rationale, also.

US District Judge Henry Hudson upheld Virginia’s voter ID law that requires prospective voters to show a State-approved photo ID before they vote.  In response to the Democratic Party’s (it was the plaintiff, of course) claim that the law was politically motivated, Hudson held in part

The court’s mission is to judge not the wisdom of the Virginia voter ID law, but rather its constitutionality[.]

Hear, hear.  Hudson went on:

While the merits of this voter identification law, and indeed all aspects of Virginia’s voting regime, can be reasonably debated, it remains true that Virginia has created a scheme of laws to accommodate all people in their right to vote[.]

Indeed.  Such a debate is important to be held, in all of our States.  But the debate is a political one, to be held among the citizens of each State and their elected representatives in their legislatures and governor’s mansions.  It is outside the realm of our courts to conduct political debates.

Still, the cynicism persists.

Lawyers representing the state Democratic Party said in a filing that the Republican-dominated state legislature passed the photo ID law “to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of the Democratic Party in Virginia.”

Not at all.  The suit is nothing other than a disingenuous effort by the Democratic Party to wage lawfare in an attempt to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of protections for the sanctity of each citizen’s vote in Virginia, a sanctity at risk from voter fraud.

Because One Size Fits All

Posted on by
Reply

This time it’s the trivium of expiration dates on the food we buy in our grocery stores.

That can of soup in your pantry says “Best by June 2018.” The cereal box on the shelf above it says “Use by October 2016.” The salsa in your fridge says “Sell by June 6, 2016.”  And the quart of milk next to it simply says “May 22, 2016.”

Among the dates found on labels across the US are “production” or “pack” dates of manufacture, “sell by” dates, “best if used by” dates, “use by” dates, “freeze by” dates and even “enjoy by” dates.

And

Two Democrats in Congress—Senator Richard Blumenthal (D, CT) and Congressman Chellie Pingree (D, ME)—are just as confused as you are, and they hope to do something about it before their terms expire.

Wait—what?  Is any rational adult human being really confused about those dates?  Does anyone really not understand these expiration dates?

The States of our Republic set their own rules, but those two Progressive-Democrats don’t want variation across States; they don’t want the citizens of individual States to set their own rules: these worthies of the Federal government Know Better.  And they don’t like our choices.

After all, too many choices, too much variation makes Progressives uncomfortable.

Blumenthal and Pingree are expected to introduce bills in the Senate and House this week to establish a national standard for date labeling that would provide consumers throughout the US with consistent information on when a product begins to lose quality and when it is no longer safe to eat.

Because these two are easily confused, everyone else must be, too.  They’re projecting, again.

Elections have consequences.

Another Right Answer by a Federal Trial Court

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering DC police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

US District Judge Richard J Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment….

And another protection of our individual liberties.  Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says (again, for those of you steady readers of this blog):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that (again…): there’s not a syllable of permission for the Federal government to dictate to us citizens what our purpose in keeping and bearing may be.  The Federal government has no legitimate interest in our purpose, and so any demand that we satisfy the Federal government of our good reason is not merely unconstitutional, it’s dishonestly so.

We citizens do, through our government, restrict convicted felons’ right to keep and bear.  It stops there, though: unless the Federal government can show that a citizen has been convicted of a felony, it cannot further restrict.

Full stop.

Yes, It Does

Posted on by
Reply

The 9th Circuit is going to release, soon, its ruling on a lawsuit that involves California’s claim that it can mandate that firearm manufacturers incorporate safety devices into their firearms.

Anthony Hakl, a lawyer for the state, said the gun-rights groups sought to establish a constitutional right to purchase any handgun of one’s choice from whomever one chooses.

“No such right exists,” he wrote in a September brief.

It’s impressive that a highly trained lawyer should make such a statement with a straight face.  Alternatively, it’s depressing that our law schools do such a poor job of teaching our Constitution.

Here’s the 2nd Amendment on the matter:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing in there about safety mechanisms, nor is there anything that addresses one way or the other the purchase of any handgun of one’s choice from whomever one chooses.

Here’s the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no power to limit the sources of our Arms delegated to the United States by our Constitution.  Even the power to require us to license our Arms is a power merely to require us to know how to use—to be safe—with them.  Notice that, too: we have to be safe, not our Arms have to be safe in our stead.  Although it’s true enough that a safe weapon helps us be safe with them, it’s our responsibility to be safe, not the responsibility of an inanimate object.

Now, here’s the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As noted above, there is no power to limit the sources of our Arms, either delegated or enumerated (a delegation by our ratification).  That’s a power retained by the people.  That’s a power retained by We the People.  The ability to purchase any handgun of one’s choice from whomever we might choose is already long established in our Constitution.

Only a Progressive lawyer would seek to rewrite the Constitution in so blatantly obvious a way.