California Gun Grabbing

Two recent stories that caught my attention should send chills down your spine. The first talks about a recent session inside the Public Safety Committee of the California State Legislature. In that meeting, a total of six bills were advanced out of committee. All six bills are gun-grabbing measures advanced by the usual suspects in war on the second amendment. As part of the process, the committee heard testimony from both sides of the argument. One exchange featured Leland Yee, state senator and Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. During this exchange, Paderes called Yee out and corrected the fallacy that because of some "loophole" in a previous gun ban, there were now illegal guns on the street. Yee confronted Paderes and let his anger over being called out over his misrepresentations be known. You can read the story for yourself here, Inside the Committee. You can also watch just the video exchange between Yee and Paredes.

If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights. 

What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales. 

Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an  NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe. 

The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:

“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing. I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry.”

The implication that the NRA's goal is the cause of death by gun violence is pathetic. No one on that side of this debate ever seems to take into account personal responsibility. It is always the fault of the gun or an organization or something other that the person perpetrating the crime. 

He is also happier with law enforcement protecting his campus. How happy was he when John Zawhari killed three people on campus before police could respond and kill him? This was after killing his father and brother then setting the house on fire. The same John Zawhari who several years earlier had threatened students and been found to have bomb-making materials in his possession. That infraction cost him the ability to own a firearm for 5 years. The killings took place seven years later. Maybe Leland Yee should think about a law where someone so demented should be locked away instead of counseled for a bit and then set free to do what he ultimately did. 

Svonkin didn't mention how well he thought law enforcement protected his students, he just took the opportunity to equate students taking a gun safety course to legally armed citizens who could have protected themselves and others and possibly saved lives in that incident. Oh, but they couldn't have done that, right? Because they are just "Dirty Harrys". No, because that campus was already a "gun free zone" at the time of the rampage. That rampage was part of the reason they widened the "gun free zone" to all nine campuses. Great plan, allowing a killer to come unchallenged onto the campus and take three lives worked so well, that they have extended the plan to create the same scenario in eight other places ripe with defenseless targets. It boggles the mind...

Koehler is the only one who had anything sensible to say regarding this:

“Don’t expect the police or the government to protect you. YOU are the only one that can protect you and your family. Learn how to do it right. Learn how to do it safely.”

Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law. 

This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision. 

Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so. 

Target Corporation and Your Personal Information

I recently read an article about a gentleman who encountered Target's policy of "swiping" your driver's license in order to purchase nicotine patches for his son[1]. The story contains links to several other instances of related experiences at Target. I became very interested in what they are doing and why.

Last week I had the occasion to visit Target in order purchase a bottle of NyQuil. I had the story in the back of my mind when I reached the check-out line. Sure enough, upon scanning the single 12 oz bottle of NyQuil, the computer informed the cashier(who was brand new) that she needed to scan my ID. She asked to see my ID, and I opened my wallet to the window where it is and showed it to her. She then informed me that she needed for me to give it to her in order to scan it. I told her(as I had read in the story) that she could do a manual check and have a manager override the computer. Being new, she seemed reluctant. I told her just type in the birth date and it will ask for a supervisor. She did and it did as well.

When the manager came over and saw the screen prompting her for a password, without asking me or the cashier anything, she blindly typed it in, thereby giving the system approval to sell me the NyQuil. Only at that point did she realize why she was being asked for a password. She never addressed me or even made eye contact with me. She told the cashier, "oh, its because it is medicine, we have to swipe the ID, I'll show you how later". With that, she turned and walked away. The cashier apologized for the time it took to get that done and finished the transaction. I assured her that there was no problem and that I appreciated her taking care of my request.

When I got home, I wrote Target Corp. an email asking why they require an ID to be swiped when purchasing NyQuil as I had done. It was a simple request to see if they would let me know what their policy is in this matter. A couple of days later, I received the following response. (Emphasis mine)

Dear Chad,

If a guest approaches checkout with an age restricted-item, cashiers are prompted to check ID and scan the guest's driver's license. Scanning an ID provides a more accurate way to verify date of birth and creates a quick and efficient checkout experience for our guests. The personal information collected is solely for legal compliance and fraud detection.When scanning an ID for this purpose, the systems only capture the same data that would be captured in a manual check: first name, middle initial, last name; ID type, ID number, ID state of issue; address, country; date of birth. The data is stored in a secure environment and is deleted at the end of the standard retention period that we have established for that data.

Sincerely,

Beth

Target Guest Relations

Oh. Well, that explains nothing. So I responded to "Beth" with the following:

Beth,

Thank you for responding. I do, based on your response, have a few more questions about this policy. If the sole reason for scanning an ID is for legal compliance and fraud detection, why is ANY information other than that legally required to purchase a product(age) scanned? My address or middle initial or drivers license number is not required to determine my age. You state the system only captures the same data that would be captured in a manual check. Again, what manual check would ever look at anything besides date of birth?

I'm also curious what the "standard retention period" is for this information. What secure measures do you have in place? As far as I can tell, the consumer never signs or agrees to any sort of privacy policy before submitting this information via the license swipe.

I am a regular shopper at your store. We, in fact, do most of our shopping there. This policy troubles me greatly, however. There are many other stores in our area that do not practice this policy of information gathering for purchases of the same products. The law does not require it.

I look forward to further answers in regards to this matter.

Thank you
Chad 

I eagerly awaited for "Beth" to answer my questions. I was sure there had to be a reasonable explanation for all of this. Like I said in the above, no one else around here requires this in order to purchase NyQuil. Two days later "Beth" responded, or at least I assumed it was her... (emphasis mine)

Dear Chad,

Thanks for taking the time to ask us about your purchase of Nyquil. 

Here is some helpful information for over the counter items containing Pseudoephedrine.

The driver’s license (or other ID) number and guest information are used only to tie the sale of PSE to an individual purchaser in order to comply with local and state laws surrounding the purchase of PSE and is not used for any other purpose. We share information only when required with authorized entities in compliance with legal requirements. Many states have additional limits in place and Target follows whichever law is most restrictive: federal, state or local. We use a national database that tracks your purchases at all retailers. 

Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,

Nancy

Target Guest Relations

Well, what happened to "Beth"? Anyway, "Nancy" had taken over with much more official sounding information. More sinister as well. A national database that tracks my purchases at all retailers? Even the ones that don't require any sort of information scanning? I just had to know more... I was using my full name in the emails, for the record.

Nancy,

Was this in response to the email I sent to "Beth", the first person to respond to me? If so, why didn't she respond? Why doesn't anyone use a last name? If this is in response to the follow-up inquiry I sent to Beth, it failed to answer a single question that I asked. Can you tell me which SPECIFIC law you are following that requires you to swipe my ID(as opposed to simply verifying my age) and store the information contained therein? I have a hard time believing that Target is the only retailer in this area that complies with this law.

Any help in understanding this would be appreciated.
Chad

That seemed to be a simple enough request. Surely if they were complying with the law, they would know which law it was that they were, in fact, complying with. I eagerly awaited "Nancy's" response. Again, with my emphasis.

Dear Chad,

Thanks for taking the time to write again. The emails you have received from Guest Relations are in response to your emails.

Here is some additional information your requested. Federal law limits purchase of PSE products to 3.6 grams per 24 hours and 9 grams per 30 days. Many states have additional limits in place and Target follows whichever law is most restrictive: federal, state or local.

We use a national database that tracks your purchases at all retailers.
We'll do our best to help you find what you're looking for at Target.

Sincerely,

Nancy

Target Guest Relations

Finally, one answer. They were in fact responding to emails that I had sent. I asked that question only to be sure multiple people weren't responding to the same email. At least this time, "Nancy" was the respondent. I felt like we were developing some sort of relationship at this point. So I decided to dig deeper. This led me to research what law she was talking about. Also to research what Proctor & Gamble is actually putting in this, what seems to be, highly-regulated drug sitting on store shelves around the country.

What I found was that the PSE restrictions were in an amendment that attached to the Patriot Act of all things. So all of this was George Bush's fault apparently(I kid). There were quite a few restrictions surrounding products containing PSEs. Most of them however, would require you to buy around 400 bottles of NyQuil in order to sound the alarms. 400 bottles in one single day. Somewhere around 1000 bottles in a month. Now seriously, who besides a meth producer would ever purchase such quantities of NyQuil? As far as I could tell, in the bill, there was no such restriction, but a lot of retailers will only allow you to purchase 2 separate medicines in a single purchase. I don;t like that policy, but I can see where they are just trying to protect themselves completely.

So back to Proctor & Gamble. How much were they actually putting into NyQuil? Turns out, none. Only one variety of NyQuil used PSE, NyQuil D, and that had been discontinued in 2010. This changed everything. I wrote "Nancy" with my findings.

Dear Nancy,

That is informative. Thank you. However, Nyquil Cough contains NO PSE products. The only form of Nyquil that contains any PSE products is Nyquil D, which according to the manufacturer, Proctor & Gamble, they discontinued in 2010.

There are other aspects of that law which don't seem consistent with your policy of scanning and storing consumer information either.

So, why would Target require such information for the purchase of a product which does not require it?

Thank You
Chad

You would think "Nancy" would have known that before sending me that email, wouldn't you? I was beginning to suspect Nancy and Beth were probably used to responding to people who thought dog toys should be on aisle 17 close to the dog food, instead of on aisle 19 closer to the bird and cat toys. But I admired their effort... The next response I got from Target was as follows:

Dear Chad ,

I believe Nyquil Cough contains Dextromethorphan, or DEX, is an intoxicating substance used in some cold medicines. It suppresses coughs safely, but in large amounts it produces a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes hallucinations, vivid dreams and a feeling of being outside of one's body.
Various media sources have described how teenagers use cold medication which contains DEX as an intoxicant.
Retailers are taking various steps to control how the product is sold in their stores.
Guests may also refer to Dextromethorphan as “DXM.”

Sincerely, 

Katherine

Target Guest Relations

So my illusions about my relationship with "Nancy" were premature. "Katherine" sent me researching again. I found that there were a small amount of state laws dealing with DMX, mostly very similar to the laws surrounding PSE. The only Federal regulations on DMX are from the FDA and they involve nothing more than labeling restrictions and requirements. Senator Durbin introduced legislation that read almost identical to the Patriot Act provision, but it died in committee with no action in 2009.

I decide, since "Katherine" mentioned only media reporting on kids misusing the product and "retailers" taking steps to control it, that I wouldn't bring up any laws surrounding the product. She didn't appear to know any such laws exist and why should I be the one to fan her flames. I saw her response as more of a brush-off than any of the others so far. It kind of angered me that they were unwilling to engage in a real conversation about why they have a policy to swipe and store personal information when the law didn't require them to do so. So, I responded to them again with the following:

Hi Katherine, welcome to the conversation.

This is all in regards to Target's apparent policy of requiring the swiping and subsequent storing of personal information in order to purchase a bottle of Nyquil. First, I was told it was for legal compliance and fraud detection and was done to make my experience quick and efficient. Then I was told of all the information gathered(which goes well beyond age verification) and that it would be stored securely for a standard retention period(of which my inquiry as to how secure and for how long was ignored).

Then I was told the purpose was, "only to tie the sale of PSE to an individual purchaser in order to comply with local and state laws surrounding the purchase of PSE and is not used for any other purpose". When I asked which law Target was complying with, I was only given "Federal law limits purchase of PSE products to 3.6 grams per 24 hours and 9 grams per 30 days".

After researching and finding out that Nyquil doesn't even use PSE in it's product(something you would think retailers should know in order to be in compliance with federal law), I again asked why I was being asked to provide extensive information to be stored in a national database for the purchase of said product. Now you tell me that you "believe" Nyquil contains DMX and that various media has described how teenagers use it and that "retailers" are taking steps to control the sale of it.

Does Target have a written policy regarding age restricted products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the sale of PSE products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the sale of DMX products?
Does Target have a written policy regarding the way it confirms the age of the consumer?

I have read in other national media outlets that one can request that their info not be swiped/stored, that instead a manager can override the system and manually input the age verification data. Is this true?

Can you please answer the questions I have asked so that I can finally know what Target's policies are?
I have been a Target customer for many years and have spent a LOT of money in your stores. I think you owe me at least the courtesy of answering those questions.

Respectfully
Chad

I laid out, in full, how they had been avoiding my questions and summed it up with several direct questions. I told my wife that expected their next response to either refer me to their legal department or to tell me that they would no longer respond to my emails. This is what I got:

Dear Chad Y,

Thanks for taking the time to share your additional thoughts. I'm sorry we aren't able to help with this further.

We have sent you our information regarding PSE, DEX and the reasons why we scan your driver's license.

 I've shared your comments with the appropriate team.

Sincerely,

Katherine

Target Guest Relations

So, in the end, what have we learned? We have learned that they mine personal information for arbitrary reasons. They store and share this information with whom they see fit. They will not be forthcoming or honest in their responses. And, in previous documented cases, they have given altogether different answers than they gave me.

It is no secret that Target Corporation is very liberal. You can see this by who they regularly support. What troubles me the most is what we don;t yet know about them. What is this national database? Who has access to it? What will it be used for once the (un)Affordable Heath Care Act goes into full swing?

Once you establish a customer ID at Target, everything you purchase is tracked. It is tracked every time you use a credit or debit card or when you allow them to scan your ID. Target has come under a little bit of fire for this, and that is good. What is bad, though, is the number of other businesses that are doing the exact same thing that have been able to fly under the radar so far. Call me a kook if you will, but then research it for yourself. It is happening and it will continue to happen on a much larger scale.

What can be done about it? Well, you could always just use cash. Lots less convenient and some have even suggested doing that will land you on a watch list. I've heard the term "potential terrorist" associated with the practice. Big Brother is watching folks. But the scary part is we are opening up our windows, in most cases, for him to stick his head into. Government as we know it wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives. This is one way they are succeeding. Be careful out there...

Joe Fudd Addendum

I wish I had seen this before I posted that last piece. During a facebook townhall meeting last month, Joe "Fudd" Biden told us to expect new legislation that would ensure "that a loaded weapon is not in the reach of a stranger or a family member who is not competent to use it.” Let that sink in for a moment. Joe Biden is going to lecture us on being "competent" enough to use a gun. If you are unsure what competent means, I encourage you to look it up. I'm going to assume that you know for the purposes of this blog.

Competent enough to use a firearm would entail things like not randomly firing one into the air, having no idea where the projectile might end up. Also, not firing one blindly through the door of your home without knowing who or what stands on the other side of it. Basically, competent enough not to let Joe Biden anywhere near your gun.

There are statistics out there(which I'm not going to quote here) that lead us to the logical conclusion that legal gun owners are some of, if not the most, responsible single group of people in America today. To have someone as irresponsible as Joe Biden(see previous post) lecturing us on competency and responsibility in the area of gun safety is beyond ridiculous. He is part of an administration and collective of people who between the top 10 of them would not likely be able to tell you the basic rules of gun safety.

That leads me to my next point. In the same meeting, Joe "Fudd" told us that he also supported the idea of parents checking on how friends store weapons before they allow their children to go to other peoples’ houses. “That’s a judgement for every parent to make,” Biden said. "I don’t think it’s irrational for you to ask whether or not there are guns in the home and how they are stored.”

While I think it is a very good idea to know as much about where our children are going and who they are associating with, I think if someone that I didn't already have some kind of relationship with asked me those questions, I'd just tell them they should probably have little Johnny play somewhere else if they were concerned about the safety of my home. As for my children, they will know the rules of gun safety. They won't put themselves in dangerous situations where someone might just have guns laying around. They would know to leave, immediately, if someone started playing with a gun or asking them if they wanted to see or play with a gun. They would know right away upon entering a home whether or not the occupants seem like responsible people. This kind of training starts at home. I am much more able to trust that my properly educated child can assess the situation than I would be by asking someone those questions. If they were responsible owners, they would probably tell me exactly what I would tell them. If they weren't responsible gun owners, they probably wouldn't tell the truth anyway. What Joe "Fudd" is suggesting, on the surface seems well intentioned enough. But deeper down, what I believe he is suggesting is very intrusive. I think it is in line with the thinking of doctors asking whether or not there are guns in the home.

Gun safety begins with the gun owner. It is his or her responsibility to make sure they are doing everything possible to ensure the safety of themselves and anyone else who may happen upon their gun. Accidents happen, but in most cases of unintentional shootings, it is negligence and irresponsibility that lies at the heart of the cause. I don't believe that anyone ever accidentally shot themselves while cleaning a gun. If you follow the basic safety rules(and common sense), it will not happen. I abhor reading a story about these incidents. Irresponsible gun owners do more harm to those of us who understand what gun ownership means than people like Piers Morgan does in spewing his nightly diatribe.

So, Joe "Fudd" Biden, do us a favor and stick to what you know. That may take a while to figure out, but at least you'll be kept busy.