Friday, February 17, 2017

Two-Faced about Colorado Carry Bill, because USPSA!

I find myself ... to my amazement ... giving credence to  Liberal cautionary remarks.

Gun bill to allow "constitutional carry" passes GOP-led committee:
 “If you’re legally eligible to possess a firearm, you should be able to carry that weapon concealed for self-defense without begging for government’s permission,” said Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, the bill’s sponsor. He called it “common-sense legislation.”
 Mary Parker of Ken Caryl, who has a concealed-carry permit, opposed the bill. She said
there’s not enough training required now to carry a gun, and allowing untrained people to walk around armed won’t end well.

I've been training people for six years now, and I've never rejected anyone from my "INTRODUCTION TO USPSA" class FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT they are a total incompetent.

That's why I'm there; to teach the "incompetents" to become competent.

Having said that, I admit that I've passed too many "Total Incompetents" through the training regimen.  Usually, they're just unfamiliar with the concept of "drawing from a holster" and it's obvious that they will improve with experience... so we treat that First Match as a "Training Experience" and allow them to continue.

If they're "irredeemably totally incompetent", they usually figure it out for themselves and they don't show up for the monthly matches (unless they have elicited some private/personal training; not a common thing.)

OTHER THAN THAT:

I've said it before, I'll say it again, here and now:

SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HANDLE A GUN!

What would we do without NewsWeek? (Think for ourselves?)

It's a wonderful thing to be a writer for NEWSWEEK:

When there's a Democratic administration, you get to write about a Saint; and when there's a Republican in the White House, you get to write about the asshole leading the country.

Either way, you have an eager readership just waiting to read (and agree with you) about whatever you have to say about the current administration!

Donald Trump’s Congressional Lackeys Are Threatening Washington D.C.’s Gun Laws:
 Now proven largely correct, I’m willing to bet there’s one consequence to Donald Trump’s presidency that didn’t occur to you: For the first time in 40 years, due to the Republican Congress emboldened by a new president, guns might return to the streets of our nation’s capital en masse, no longer subject to the controls that have kept gun violence in check for decades.
This is just one example about the opinions propounded in SlewsWeek;
The current administration is "permitting" Americans in DC to exercise their constitutional rights ... and it is A Bad Thing!

DC is "no longer subject to the controls that have kept gun violence in check for decades.

Yeah, right.

The District of Columbia has been among the top fifteen most lawless (in terms of "Gun Violence") cities in America for decades, but NewsWeek Magazine typifies it as a city which has kept " gun violence in check for decades."

This has been a town (?) which has been (in 13th place in the nation along with its sister city, Baltimore, in 4th place) so lawless that criminals, crooks, gang-bangers and other Bad Guys have been moving from Chicago (18th place) to the DC area just because they know they are less likely to be prosecuted for "gun violence" .. because DC wants so badly to maintain its (unlikely) image as a "violence free" place to live.

If it wasn't for all the armed body-guards protecting elected officials, there would be NO protection for "The Average Joe".  All you have to do in DC to protect yourself is to have a half-dozen suits forming a protective circle around you; everyone else is assumed to be without protection, because NO GUNS ALLOWED!

The rest of the citizens have been advised to carry a five-dollar bill in their wallet, no credit cards, and to meekly "give it up" when confronted by muggers.

Where is the outrage?

Who can carry a gun?  (Nobody, except armed, licensed "Security Guards" ... which the Average citizen cannot afford!)

Gun Control sucks.  It keeps the criminals .. muggers, gang-bangers, etc. ... well armed and everyone else (who can't afford a hired bodyguard) without defense.   Unless, of course, they're willing to "carry" even though it's a violation of the law, or perhaps if they are "privileged" to carry a firearm .. which means very few without  "Political Influence".

Here's how you can get a Concealed Carry License in the District of Columbia:

The District of Columbia is a "May Issue" entity: you must have a permit to carry a firearm, but permits are rarely issued.
In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.[9] 
In a word:   NO!   "They cannot keep you from owning a firearm!"


SSA and Public Financing of "Those Who Will Not Work"

A recent kerflufle regarding 'senior citizens" and "anti-gun groups" highlights the extremes to which gun control people will go to define Constitutional rights to ... as many firearms owners as possible.

(See the bottom of this post for details.)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) took aim at senior citizens who find it more convenient to find an advocate to handle their Social Security payments/obligations, than to sort through the confusing myriad of laws.

SSA (a federal agency) proposed that anyone who authorized an "advocate" to guide their fiduciary rights was obviously "mentally deficient", and therefore should not be "allowed" to possess a firearm, on the grounds that they are among the "Non Compos Mentis":  ("not of sound mind; mentally incapable of managing one's affairs.) 

Why the SSA should make this leap of logic is unclear.

Or is it?

Their mandate is to insure that workers who have contributed to FICA deductions from their paychecks (involuntary contribution to both Social Security and Medicare) for all of their working rights, should in post-retirement years be entitled to those benefits.

Why would they want to do that?  Inquiring Federal Minds want to know, because it's not in their Best Interests


The Answer is:  It's The Feds!
One guess is that, since SSA (and Medicare) payments have willy-nilly been entered into a "Slush Fund" status (from which various federal agencies have not been restricted from plundering at will to support other 'social benefits'), the Feds have recently realized that they have inadequate funds to pay the earned social obligations to the Baby Boomers who are now retiring in record numbers.

It stands to reason that the Feds are unwilling to search for the money which has been funded by these programs to repay the original investors.

Unfortunately, The Feds have been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" for so long, that Peter is beginning to wonder how the United States government intends to repay the stolen funds.

All of the Government Programs stem from the same source; the elected members of the U.S. Government, and their method of meeting the fiduciary obligations which they have arbitrarily forced upon us.

We're paying illegal aliens, people who refuse to work, and other neer-do-wells who will re-elect irresponsible politicians to office over and again just so they can be the happy recipients of a mutual admiration society;  
"you pay us to vote for you, and in return we will not question how you manage the funds into which nobody expects us to contribute".
Now that the Federal Government finds itself in a bind  between tax-payers and tax-delinquents, they have some difficult decisions to make.
Shakespeare, in his famous soliloquy from Hamlet wonders:
To be, or not to be, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,And by opposing end them: to die, to sleepNo more; and by a sleep, to say we endthe heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocksthat Flesh is heir to?
Unfortunately, that is a question which the Ruling Democrats have for too long found themselves unwilling to face.   They rely on the votes of those-who-get, rather than those-who-give.

That's about to change;  we hope!

 We Hope that Donald Trump knows more about Finances than Politics.

 We Hope that a new administration will pay less attention to the 'needs' of "Those Who Will Not Work", and more intention to those who contribute to the welfare our our Country.

 We Hope that Federal Funding will be directed more to creation of lesser-skill-level jobs (yes, computers are undermining our society, and we need to find a way to balance technology and society) or to training entry-level job applicants to a useful service industry\
(like that's going to happen, but hope springs eternal, etc.)

We don't expect that our hopes will be answered, which is probably why we keep electing the same losers to represent us in D.C. 


THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST:

NRA and Republicans find unlikely ally on rollback of gun control rule: science | US news | The Guardian:

The Social Security Administration would ultimately receive more than 90,000 comments on its proposed rule for doing this – meaning that more people wrote in to protest against the measure than the number of people who would ultimately be affected. Supporters of the Obama rule said it focused on a relatively narrow group of extremely impaired people. “This rule only impacts people who have been determined to be so severely disabled through a mental disorder that they can do no sort of gainful activity. They can’t hold a job even part time. Their mental disability is so severe that the Social Security Administration has determined that funds cannot be paid directly to them,” said Lindsay Nichols, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Mentally Impaired" Recipients of Social Security?

Unless I read this wrong, the authors of this article consider that anyone who willing accepts a firearm in his/her home (let along WILLFULLY DESIRING to own a firearm) ... must be crazy.


NRA and Republicans find unlikely ally on rollback of gun control rule: science | US news | The Guardian:

For once, science is on the side of the National Rifle Association and Donald Trump, according to prominent experts on mental health and violence. 
(Reluctantly stated?)
 A cohort of researchers and civil rights advocates say congressional Republicans were right to roll back an Obama-era rule that would have barred certain mentally impaired recipients of social security benefits from owning guns. The Obama rule “is fundamentally not a rational policy”, said Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatrist who directs the law, ethics and psychiatry division at Columbia University. “It’s not a rule that would be very likely to make us safer.”
The "Obama-era rule" cited, but not defined, is that a retired person ("recipient of social security benefits") who chooses to have a third-party negotiate his/her retirement benefits package under the American Social Security Laws",  may (should?) be arbitrarily defined as "Mentally Defective" .
("Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.")
The policy, finalized in the last weeks of the Obama administration, would have disqualified from gun ownership an estimated 75,000 people who have mental illnesses or disabilities and are assigned a representative to manage their social security benefits. The people targeted by the rule “are not a particularly high-risk group for violent behavior”, Appelbaum said.
First Point:  These people are usually those who have sufficient mental capacity to decide (for their own reasons!) that they choose not to manage their own benefits package negotiations.   Which is not unreasonable, because the federal rules are sometimes contradictory and often obtuse.   It seems only reasonable that individuals may decide to appoint a judiciary arbitrator ... and it's constitutionally supported.

Second Point:  Why in the WORLD would the Social Security Administration make such an arbitrary ruling, entirely unsupported by other rules of law (or the Constitution!) which effects only retirees?

Third Point:  If a person is sufficiently 'in his right mind' to appoint a designee (much akin to an "Attorney of Record" or a "Trustee"), why would that appointment be an ipso facto argument that the person is incapable of handling his/her own legal affairs?

It seems reasonable to assume that the SSA is voluntarily accepting the general Rule of Federal Government, which is to deem anyone who applies for Federal benefits as a total fucking loser and may safely be treated with disdain, if not disrespect.  (That also includes the collateral assumption that the person in question is not a present or past Federal Employee, which of course automatically elevates said person to the Intelligentsia!)

This leads directly to the argument that anyone who trusts his government deserves exactly that he gets ... which is at best "poor service" and a least disdain, insult, embarrassment and intimidation.

That's what Government is good for, and nothing better.

Trust me: I was a Federal Employee for two years; the only redeeming factor for my service was that the people I "serviced" were entitled to shoot back at me.   And they did .. if poorly, with great enthusiasm!

I never really blamed them for that; it seemed like a reasonable response then, and it still does.

READING! (Col. Jeff Cooper, et al: Shit You Need To Know!)

SayUncle: They see me patrollin’. They hatin’:
just about every writhing related to handguns today, can directly be traced to Jeff Cooper.
It doesn't happen often, but every now and then some KnowzNothing has a bad thing to say about The Colonel.

SayUncle is far too wise to "go there", and he realizes the great benefits that Col. Jeff Cooper has lent to such competitive entities as USPSA/IPSC and similar activities.

But not everyone has such good sense.

I have a lot of opinions, and as a personal favor I'll spare you the recitation.  If you haven't  even read, let alone OWN, Cooper's "Gargantuan Gun Gossip",  *(both ONE and Two, let alone THREE)* you don't know shit.

Cooper's great about providing you all the SHIT you need to know about guns, gun safety, and the gun community/milieu.

And I use the term "shit" advisedly, because there's a shit-load of stuff about the gun culture that you can't get without either (A) spending thirty years in the culture, or (B) reading Cooper's accumulated works on the subject.

Best if you can do both, but for some folks it's a little late to attempt to grasp 30 years of culture in a single session;  Cooper attempts to give us at least a shadow of the values of Gun Culture, which nobody else (with the possible exception of perhaps Skeeter Skelton) has managed to do in the past half-century.

Oh, and of course Robert Ruark is on your "Must Read" list, for all times!

I find myself on the verge of providing a reading list for my friends, and that's A Bad Idea.  It's best that we discover our own "favorite author" list,

The Shooting Sports comes with a century (or two) of literature, which non-shooters neither know nor appreciate.  The writers (from Robert Service through Ernest Hemingway to Peter Hathaway Capstick  .. well, you name it) have provided the glory of the Gun World to millions of readers over the past century and longer.

...

I am of the opinion that people in general need to develop and perfect three social skills:

(1) Shooting ... quickly, accurately,  ... where and and when it is needed;
(2) Situational Awareness, so that the first skill is never needed;
(3) Civilized Discourse, so that the first two skills are less likely to be needed.

This isn't to say that the three skills are mutually incompatible; only to say that there is an accelerating stratus of skills to be learned, with the hope that each may minimize the need to descend to the next highest level.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

About that 2012 Clackamas Mall Shooting .... ARMED CITIZEN!

Oregon Divide | Indiegogo:
On December 11th, 2012 at Clackamas Town Center in Portland Oregon, a lone gunman walked into the crowded shopping mall and started shooting.  He killed two people and wounded a teenager before he placed the barrel of his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in his mouth and pulled the trigger.
This is a frightfully telling story about a gunman in a public place.

The only element missing is ... why did the shooter kill himself?

Because one armed civilian (even though it was a Gun Free Zone) pointed his gun at the killer.

The Civilian didn't have to fire a shot ... the killer, noticing that he had been 'targeted' .... handled the dirty work.   Blew his own head apart.  (One Alpha)

Gun Free Zones ...  the civilian was NOT prosecuted for carrying in a GFZ!

And you know, the Main Stream Media won't tell you about that Armed Citizen!

(cf: Bearing Arms)

Racist Me

I'm a white male member of the NRA, and I haven't shot anybody for ... like ... MONTHS!

No, really!

I hope this won't look bad on my resume.

"Whiteness" Presenter Bashes NRA, Says All Mass Shooters Are White Males - YouTube:
Published on Apr 6, 2016 Charlotte Childress, with her sister Harriet Childress, give a presentation on hierarchy at "whiteness history month" at Portland Community College. In this excerpt, they bash the NRA, white males, say all mass shooters are white, talk about the psychology behind wanting to talk about white mass shooters without actually talking about guns, and framing the NRA as a hierarchical organization, thus making it evil.



Sneaky, dirty rats

Trump calls Islamic State 'sneaky, dirty rats' during Hannity interview - YouTube:

 Jan 26, 2017 President Donald Trump discussed the fight against ISIS, replacing Obamacare, his Supreme Court nominee and much more in an interview with Sean Hannity in the White House.





I wish I had said that ... I could have, but nobody would have listened.
Oh, and I don't have the ability to pick the perfect nomenclature for the "sneaky, dirty rats" which threaten our country.

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Liberal Press Again Skews Facts About Firearms Violence Research

Gun Violence Researchers Race to Protect Data From Trump | WIRED:
(February 07, 2017)
 AROUND 11 AM Pacific on January 20th, while newly-inaugurated President Trump finished a celebratory lunch in the Capitol Rotunda, Magdalena Cerd  noticed something different about the White House’s website: All of its references to climate change had disappeared. Cerd  is an epidemiologist at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, which focuses on another politicized region of science—gun violence. So she knew what that meant.  (emphasis added)
Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know what 'that meant'; but the insinuation that the Trump White House was censoring published (or private) research data about "Climate Change" is obvious,

There are a lot of details which are not examined or made clear in this amateurish article, which suggests that it should be ignored except as an example of unprofessional reporting.  It's more important for what information it does not provide, than for the bias which is revealed.

And even more telling, research data about "gun violence" was, as insinuated by this WIRED article, also at risk of having been "disappeared".

This article is a patent attack on the integrity of the Trump White house, for purely political reasons.
 “It was a real call to action,” Cerd  says. With links to climate data vanishing, she worried the same thing could happen to gun violence data on websites belonging to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I was on Amtrak between Berkeley and Sacramento,” she says. “So I sent an email to Garen Wintemute saying we needed to start downloading our data immediately.”
Does that mean that the research data of the UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program was not regularly backed up?

This is difficult to believe, considering that tens of thousands of dollars were probably invested in the research.   The UC Davis Web Master wasn't encouraging the research teams to perform website and data backups at least daily (and more responsibly, more than once a day) or that the data wasn't available on an offsite data repository?   It's a base canard against the professional practices of a respected Educational and Research Facility.

Rather than to point the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate at UC Davis tech support, I find it much more likely that the UC Davis research program managed to lose (at least temporarily ... whether they recovered the data is not discussed in the article) valuable research data, and in an attempt to cover up their embarrassing lack of data integrity supervision has chosen to blame their oversight on an external agency.

Specifically, a political foe:  the current President of the United States of America.

The suggestion that the President would be responsible for a loss of research data is not only bizarre, but it is a sad commentary on whomever provided the 'background' information for this article ... and for the author, who rushed to judgement by printing innuendo instead of facts.

(In fact, the article suggests that the President had the power, and the resources, to delete 'research data' from multiple, federally funded, generally reliable websites such as the Center for Disease control!)

And the worst approbation is for the website, which allowed this article to be published without requiring the minimum standard of finding at least two sources which support the same interpretation.

I once considered WIRED to be a reliable data source, if only for its technical content.
Now that the website has undermined its own integrity, every single word they ever published will be tainted.

So long WIRED.   Nobody will ever trust you, since you turned Political.



(The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award)

Monday, February 06, 2017

Eliminate ATF? Oh, please!

What federal agency doesn't have enough work to justify its existence, so they are overstaffed and then go looking for innocent civilians to harass just to make it look like they're actually ... you know .. accomplishing something?

If you said "Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives" you  would be almost right.

(I say "almost" because, having nothing better to do with their copious free time, this agency changes its name with the seasons;  I'll just call them the "ATF", because that's what they call themselves when they're at home;  and you can call them less complimentary names if it makes you feel good.)

I think it might be a good idea to eliminate the ATF and shift its duties to other federal agencies.


The ATF (BATFE ... etc) ... is an organization in search of a job.  They don't have enough to do while enforcing regulations on alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives .....    

... (which organization, by the way, was originally established only to insure that the appropriate taxes were paid to the feds;  all this enforcement shit that made such a huge wave in the Prohibition Era was generated only because they didn't have UTUBE for self-congratulatory advertisements,  It's all about funding!.)  ...

...... so they at ATF are desperate for a way to justify their existence.

They couldn't find enough work regulating firearms, and their best years of busting moon-shiners were gone, and tobacco isn't an issue (enough smokers die every year to render ATF meaningless), and what's with that "Explosives" thing?  We all know, all you need is a pressure cooker and some chemicals from under your kitchen sink.

So the ATF (Excuse me!  "BATFE"!) is looking for some way to justify their existence.   They don't have anything else to do, to keep them busy.

Please, by all means .. eliminate the redundancy and shift their duties to some other Federal Agency which is already so over-burdened that it hasn't time or resources to harass  bug law-abiding firearms owners with meaningless and redundant regulations.

Personally, I feel really sorry for the sad sacks who can't find 'A Real Job' and have to go to work for the ATF.   They are the most despised people in this country, and they try to make themselves feel better by imagining that they are doing something which justifies their salary.

I understand that.  I did the same thing for the last 20 years of my career, when I was working for a state educational institution.

But at least I never put anyone in jail for exercising his constitutional rights.

Guns in churches?

Guns in churches? Pastors debate church security - KWES NewsWest 9 / Midland, Odessa, Big Spring, TX: newswest9.com |:
The Texas legislature is considering a law that would allow churches to hire security officers. Many Wichita Falls churches have security, but not everyone believes armed guards belong in church. "If you think you need to have a gun to go to church, or have someone there to guard you, it makes me wonder if we need to test the depth of our faith," Cheryl Murray, Pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, said. "Maybe we are just sticking our big toe in the shallow end instead of diving all in." She believes there are more pressing issues for the legislature to tackle than security in churches.

Luke 22:36 (BBE) And he said to them, But now, he who has a money-bag, or a bag for food, let him take it: and he who has not, let him give his coat for money and get a sword.

I guess this is officially an even-numbered year

Yesterday I wrote a draft outline about my angst-ridded decisions whether or not to renew my National Rifle Association (NRA) membership.   But I didn't publish it; I gave myself time to rethink my original decision.

I 'rejoined' the NRA last year, after having allowed my annual membership to lapse the year before.  I usually rejoin on even number years, and decline renewal on odd-numbered years.  There's a "love/hate" relationship between me and the NRA; I think they're insufficiently conservative and that they don't do enough to protect the Second Amendment.

uh ... yes, perhaps I am a little right of center.

Today, I read this article:

America's 1st Freedom | Tracing Judge Gorsuch’s Paper Trail On The Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.” So wrote U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in United States v. Miguel Games-Perez. That case demonstrates why Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.
Then I went to the NRA website and signed up for another year.   If it helps keep judges like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, it's worth $40 to me.

But I did demand that I get the free magazine with my membership.  I'm not a TOTAL Bleeding Heart!


Saturday, January 28, 2017

Fed Ex Saves The Flag

FedEx driver saves American flags from protesters’ flames in Iowa City | WQAD.com:

Around noon, a small number of people gathered at a rally in front of the pedestrian mall to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline, and a variety of other issues, reports KCRG. As they were burning an American flag, bystanders caught video of a FedEx employee jumping in and grabbing the flags, putting out the flames with a fire extinguisher.

H/T BOREPATCH


(Art work from COMMENTS section on the original post, and twitter)

update: 01/30/17: Matt Uhrin, the FedEx driver from Cedar Rapids, Iowa who intervened last Thursday to save American flags from protesters trying to burn them, will not be fired for his actions.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Why TSA is finding more guns in carry-ons

Why TSA is finding more guns in carry-ons | Buckeye Firearms Association:

Bringing a gun into an airport checkpoint is a really big mistake, but as more people carry more frequently, such mistakes are bound to happen. The Transportation Security Administration is reporting that the number of guns discovered at security checkpoints at our nation's airports has been steadily growing in recent years. TSA says they confiscated 2,653 guns from airline passengers in 2015, and are on track to break that record this year. They have been averaging a little more than seven guns a day at airport security checkpoints nationwide.
This article may be a bit confusing to some people, but it's probably because they are confused about the difference between "Carry-On" and "Checked" baggage.

No, you cannot have a firearm in the passenger area.  But it is perfectly legal to have a firearm in "Checked Baggage" (the bags which are stowed in the cargo area of the airplane, and not immediately accessible to you or anyone else in the passenger section of the airplane).

The rules for transporting a firearm in "Checked Baggage" will probably vary between airlines ... you need to check their online website to determine to priorities for the airline that's taking you to your next match.

But generally, there are a few rules in common for firearms in "Checked Baggage"


  • The firearm must be unloaded!   Some airlines ask that you demonstrate to the ticket agent that you have an unloaded firearm during check-in, but that is becoming increasingly rare because you'll scare the pants off that check-in clerk if you are determined to "Unload And Show Clear" during the check-in process.   As long as the firearm is in a locked hard-shell bag, you're probably okay.
  • Most airlines do not tag a bag as "Firearm Enclosed", but some may.  (Actually, most do.)   Not saying you should not declare, but if you must ... baggage handlers LOVE bags with a Red Tag on the handle.  Answer questions when they are asked, but it may not be necessary to offer information.  Again, check the rules for the airline you're riding with.The gun should be in a hard-side suitcase, and then inside a hard box, and the bag should be locked with a key. Get the most secure suitcase you can find; they're less expensive than buying a new race gun.  Oh, and baggage handlers will also focus on top-of-the-line secure bags because they know there are goodies inside.   No, you can't win; but you can make it more challenging.
  • Ammunition, if you're travelling with it, must be in a separate bag.  If you're going to a match, it's a lot better idea to ship it ahead of time to your match hotel than to include it in your checked baggage.
  • Ammunition, by the way, has special packaging rules.  They sound like "in original packaging", but what they're saying is you shouldn't have loose rounds in a box.   Or a tub.  Or anything that might get 'broken' by rough handling.  (I'm not picking on Baggage Handlers", but see the TV ad for Gorilla Luggage below.)  Which just makes good sense.  And by the way, plastic ammo boxes WILL get broken during shipment.  Cardboard ("Original") boxes are more likely to survive the bumps and grinds of baggage handlers.
  • Shipping to the "Match Hotel" works fine for ammunition, but it has special problems if you try to ship your gun.  Assuming you're going out-of-state, you may run afoul of local/state laws if you ship a firearm, even to yourself, interstate.  (If you'r going to a match in the same state, you're probably going to drive.  If you don't plan to drive ... you may want to reconsider your travel plans)
  • SPARES:  Expect the Unexpected. If you have two guns, bring them both; in separate packages, especially if you're shipping them (in luggage .. have two pieces of luggage with spares in each one).  Have a complete set of tools, including a small brass hammer, punches (a 1/8" as a minimum), screwdrivers and any other tools you would use to perform maintenance on your firearm.   Consider spare ejector, extractor (tune it at home so you don't have to do it at the match), various screws, recoil spring, main spring ... every spring you can think of!) firing pin, firing pin block.  Don't forget that blue stuff that keeps the screws from backing out because you expect to do a lot of shooting at a match.
  • Ammunition ... always bring at least 50% more ammunition than you expect to need.   You never know how many 'reshoots' you will have to do because some dummy didn't write your time down on your score sheet.  At a major match, and if you're shooting some caliber that isn't standard (like .38 Super Comp), bring twice what you expect to need.  At least.  If you can't buy it at a sporting goods store in town, expect to need it.
  • Insurance: Get some.  Make it appropriate to the value of your firearm(s).  You may not be glad you did, but you will be sorry if you don't.   If your 'stuff' gets lost in transit, insurance may be the cheapest, yet most valuable, purchase you make.
  • Magazines (speedloaders) expect to lose some, or have them turn up non-functional; the likelihood of this happening is directly proportional to the expense of attending the match.
  • Car Keys:  This sounds stupid, but when you leave your car at the airport, be SURE you didn't lock your keys in your car in the airport parking lot.  I once had to call my Sweety's sister from New York to ask her to break into my house and get my spare set of keys, because I left the keys to my car IN my car in the parking lot ... in Oregon.  She sent the spare keys to me, which saved me having to get a taxi from Portland to Corvallis just to get home from the airport.
  • Other Stuff:   Cash, travelers' checks, credit cards, Drivers' license ... all the stuff you normally know you need to have on your person when you travel.
When you go to a major match, you don't need to have the distraction of anticipating problems when you're suppose to be focusing on the match.

By the way, I posted almost the same advice a few years ago, and most of this hadn't changed.  I'm just too lazy to look up the original article and provide a link to it here.


Gorilla Luggage:

x

Washington: "Unsecured Firearm Law" proposed

What IS it with Washington State this week?

Unsecured firearm law would hold gun owners accountable:

...  Washington state doesn’t have a law to punish gun owners whose weapons get in the hands of the wrong people. Democratic state Senator Guy Palumbo is trying to change that. Palumbo introduced a bill that would make unsafe storage of a gun a crime. “It’s basically to keep the guns we do have out of the hands of dangerous people,” he said.
Anyone with a firearm can be described as "dangerous people".  That's the whole point of a firearm.

 As the bill is currently written, a gun owner would either get a misdemeanor or felony — depending on how the gun was used — if their unsecured firearm was used illegally by someone.
Which is to say, YOU can be penalized on a 'sliding scale' depending on what some OTHER person does ... and does without either your consent or your knowledge, never mind your active participation.

This is going to be a great year to be a Lawyer in Washington State!

You can never guarantee those wouldn’t happen — those tragedies — but certainly in those cases, this all would have had ramifications for the people’s whose guns were used in those tragedies.” Palumbo, a gun owner himself, says it is just “common sense” to lock up firearms. “I’m a gun owner, but it’s unfair to keep them unlocked,” he said. 
What's unfair is to require people to make their personal defense firearms inaccessible to the owners.
Which is another way of saying: "that's the whole point of a firearm".

 He admits he is not sure how well the bill will do.
In a sane society, it would be laughed out of the house.  On The Left Coast, we never know what the idiots in office will do.

Washington State: What part of "Will Not Comply" is still unclear to you?

FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law - The Truth About Guns:

 The FBI has just released a report showing that private party transfers in Washington following the new law accounted for only 2% of the total background checks.

Duh!
Nobody wants to comply, because (a) it's expensive and inconvenient, (b) since firearms serial numbers are necessarily included, it is tantamount to Registration [the first step to confiscation], and (c) only law-abiding citizens will obey the law ... which is supposedly framed to prevent sale of firearms to criminals.

Criminals will ignore it, rendering the law moot and ineffective as a means to its stated goal.
 Do you not recognize the dichotomy of the situation?

In America, private individuals have been loaning, exchanging and selling firearms to each other for hundreds of years,  To begin penalizing (imprisoning them?) now for exercising their constitutional rights would be the same as penalizing (imprisoning them?) for going to the church of their choice or speaking their mind in a public forum.

If the law would accomplish its goal, it might be acceptable by the citizenry ... if it were better written!
But this POS law will not really be effective in Washington.  Or Oregon.  Or Nevada or Connecticut ... etc.


For a detailed explanations of just why "Universal Background Checks" are A Bad Idea, read Dr. John Lott's recent explanation.

Ohhhhhhh .... Rob!

I'll miss Laura Petri.












In Case You Don't Know What Online Fakes Look Like:

I do this once every year or so, and I don't give the specific details because ... it's all fake stuff designed to defraud unsuspecting people.

This is what is commonly known as the "Nigerian Letter", and if your server prevents this from reaching you ... you have good protection.  

Yes, it tempts the recipient to engage in deliberate fraud.

Yes, it's all a lie.

No, you should not even respond to any letter that looks anything like this; if you respond at all, they have your email address and they will sell it to their friends.   And you will never hear the last of them.

If this looks like something you ought not to even see, just delete it now.

Significant "Tells" that this is bogus: they don't have your email address, they don't have your name, and most important ... if it looks too good to be true, it is.

Oh, and they are usually semi-literate, usually they can't spell as accurately as this guy, and they almost invariably originate from Africa.


Attn Sir/Madam

I'm Mr KIIIi K Kxxxu  a database engineer with International Commercial Bank Ghana. I'm writing this short message to you in expectation of an urgent reaction from you.

I'm in charge of the database which contains record of our transaction,
customer details and Identity  in one of our branches in Accra Ghana and I'm contacting you because there's an urgent need for a partner from your country for a quick business dealings with a 50/50 share agreement. We have a customer from the US who used our bank to apply for a contract here in Ghana and the contract has been long concluded and his money paid but the issue is that till date there has been no activities on the Bank account. I have been monitoring the account since the past two years and decided to make my research only to find out that the customer is late. It's a secret only me knows and i'm seeking to use it to my advantage as it will must definitely get to the hands of the top bosses once they realize this.

The total amount is 28 Million Euros, it was paid install-mentally and the
good news is that it is an online account so it can be accessed from anywhere in the world.

Now what I want you to do if interested is to make yourself available and
I will edit the information on the account to your information then the details of the account will be given to you. I will give the contact details  of the office to contact in our bank and you will request for reactivation of the account, they will only have to go through the account details which will match yours and approve your request for reactivation.

When this is done, you will be able to transfer the funds in the account to any account of your choice but that will be in Bits to avoid restriction, I will also give you my account information as well which you will have to transfer my part of the 50%. Since i'd be in control of the activities that go on in the account , I will make sure we disburse the funds in it as agreed.

Waiting to hear from you.
Thanks.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Why Am I Not Surprised?

HRC is a known and proven imaginative re-interpreter of facts Professional Politician..

It only stands to reason that her co-conspirators supporters are known bottom-feeding from time to time caught in the act convicted of "corruption".

Former Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), who was a superdelegate for failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has reported to prison to begin his 10-year sentence stemming from numerous corruption charges.

Just draining the swamp, Boss. Move on, nothing new here.

Except ... apparently we ARE judged by the company we keep.