Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

Sometimes, the members of Team Kimberlin make it almost too easy to use them as the focus of pointage, laughery, and mockification. Six years ago today, this post—#BillSchmalfeldt, Abrams Tanks, and the Second Amendment—made fun of the Cabin Boy’s™ lack of knowledge about private ownership of weapons.

* * * * *

I was going spend the entire day ignoring Cabin Boy Bill Schmalfeldt, but someone sent me a link to his latest waste of bandwidth over at Digital Journal (No, I won’t link to it.). It’s called Op-Ed: If Abrams tanks are outlawed, only outlaws will have Abrams tanks. Schmalfeldt seems to believe that ownership of an Abrams tank by a U. S. citizen is (or should be) illegal.

Other than nuclear, biological, and most chemical weapons, citizen ownership of weapons is not generally prohibited under federal law. Some are restricted. Some are taxed. But few are prohibited. Some states are more restrictive than the feds.

I don’t know how one would go about buying one, but I’m not sure that there is any federal law that bans private ownership of an Abrams tank.

There would be a lot of paperwork and tax filings involved in owning an Abrams. The two 7.62 X 51 mm machine guns and the .50 M2 machine gun would need to have the appropriate ATF tax stamps (and the guns would need to have been made before the 1986 ban). The main gun (either the 105 mm for early M1 or the newer 120 mm) would also have to be registered with the ATF as a destructive device and the appropriate tax stamp purchased.

Here in Maryland, the three machine guns would have to be licensed by the State Police, and the owner would have to pay a $10/year fee for each. The MVA wouldn’t issue tags, so the owner would be restricted to off-road use.

If the owner kept live rounds for the main gun, the ATF would impose requirements on the storage magazine, and, here in Maryland, the State Fire Marshal would get involved.

So, yes, the Second Amendment does protect a citizen’s right to possess arms.GE

Even an Abrams tank with the right paperwork.

UPDATE—Stacy McCain has more about crazy folks with guns here.

* * * * *

Someone should use that photo to make a meme.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Gentle Reader who has been following The Saga of Team Kimberlin may remember the bravado with which William Ferguson approached his being named a defendant in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.

He was oh-so-certain that the suit was doomed before it got off the ground.S_A201605152234ZAnd then, when the court ordered him to appear at a hearing on 27 September, he tweeted this—SA201607290833ZYesterday’s mail brought an envelope explaining the likely significance of that tweet with expect to Ferguson.FiFI Envelope redactedThe Very Ordinary Seaman Ferguson can’t be found by the Postal Service at the address where he received mail for several months, and he’s left no forwarding address. It looks as if he’s trying to hide.

As things stand now, Bill Schmalfeldt is the only defendant who is not trying to hide and/or is not refusing to inform the court of his correct address. Gentle Reader, what does that tell you about the bravery of the other members of Team Kimberlin?

Oh, one more thing … I don’t intend to answer Ferguson question about finding defendants just yet. He is likely to learn the answer the hard way.


MU201607261753ZI’ve already been subjected to a couple of false criminal charges at the hands of Team Kimberlin. If a third false charge is filed, I’ll beat that one too. Therefore, before another malicious charge is filed, the person planning to do so should reflect on how I am now dealing with the first two and make sure that his vision of future is as clear as he thinks.

A Statement About a Lawsuit

On 2 March, I filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, Maryland, against Brett Kimberlin, Tetyana Kimberlin, Matt Osborne, William Schmalfeldt, William Ferguson, John Does 1 through 4, Breitbart Unmasked, Almighty Media, and Acme (an unidentified business entity). I allege that all the defendants are members of a civil conspiracy, that all of them (except Tetyana Kimberlin) engaged in defamation, that Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin engaged in malicious prosecution, and that William Schmalfeldt breached a settlement agreement. The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

I do not wish to make any further public comment on this matter for now.

UPDATE—Bill Schmalfeldt has attempted to comment on this post. Given that I am now suing him, I do not believe that he should be making comments here at Hogewash!. Effective immediately, he is banned from commenting.

UPDATE 2—There have been four comments sent in to this post thus far by the cybertwerps who I have been allowing to post their puerile and often obscene and/or defamatory (but sometimes redacted) spewings in the Hogewash! comment section for the past few months. Enough’s enough. Since I believe that one or more defendants in the new lawsuit are the source(s) of these comment, I’m wielding the ban hammer on ’em.

UPDATE 3—In the first twenty minutes following UPDATE 2, I received eleven obscene comments. Is incompetent rage all they have left? Of course, not having been served yet, the cybertwerps don’t know how they might begin to put together a defense, so they’re not really wasting time. Yet. So far, Proverbs 29:11 seems spot on.