Sunday, January 06, 2008

NRA - Supportive to individuals, or to 'groups'?

On December 17 I wrote an article titled "Registered Gun Owner", questioning whether I should feel 'comfortable' with my decision to (once again, for the fourth time) joining the National Rifle Association.

I received some comments to the effect that "it's about time", which I presumed should be construed as supportive.

Tonight I continued an established theme about protecting private ranges (and public ranges, for that matter) against the predations of developers and other vested interests which seem to find on conflict with their personal values when attempting to put Shooting Ranges out of business for the sole purpose of creating 'unclaimed property' for the development of residential properties ... and selling houses which they would build on this 'new' land.

One of the central themes in this business venture was whether the established ranges met 'industry standards'. For the purpose of the discussion, the 'industry standards' are the NRA Range Manual.

When I attempted to find a document which met the description of the "NRA Range Manual", I discovered that such a document was not readily referenced.

Bear with me, this gets complicated.

Since the "NRA Range Manual" was either unavailable online, or was 'out of print', I went to the source: The National Rifle Association.

When I attempted to contact the NRA in reference to this document, I found a link which proposed to allow me to request NRA publications. The hitch is, you have to be an NRA member to request this document. I joined the NRA on December 17, 2007. This is January 6, 2007, so that should not be a problem. Right?

Wrong.

Although the NRA debited my VISA card on December 18, 2007, as of today (January 6, 2008) I have not received my NRA member number. Therefore, the resources which may generally be considered available to a NRA member are not available to me.

I went to the NRA website and found an "ASK THE NRA" email address. I wrote to the NRA, pointed out their willingness to debit my account versus their (lack of) established mechanism which would allow me to use my NRA membership to access their resources.

To my surprise, the EMAIL sent to the "ASK THE NRA" email address was returned because the email address was 'not known'.

Working backwards through the involved issues:
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is considered to be so non-supportive of vital Range Management Issues;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is considered the definitive of Range Management;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is not available through ANY source I can imagine, including (if it's a publication generally available to the public) through such sources as AMAZON.COM;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is not available through the NRA;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA doesn't have a convenient (or even an inconvenient) link to the NRA Range Manual ... which appears to be 'out of print';
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA can countenance the continued reference to a resource without documenting that it is either (a) not a legitimate NRA document, or (b) mentioning somewhere on its website that it is obsolete and should no longer be referenced, or (c) affirming that it is a 'work in progress ... please watch this space for notification when it is available for public distribution;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA doesn't notify new members of their member number as soon as they have been determined to have paid their dues;
  • I DON'T KNOW why the NRA requires member numbers (ID) before it performs basic search functions to identify official documents which arguably SHOULD be available to anybody, regardless of member status.
It's not difficult so see why I am disappointed by the 'benefits' accruing to my new-found member status.

I've written to the NRA for clarification and asked for their assistance in my search. But I have to say that I am not encouraged by the results so far. That their published links to "WRITE TO THE NRA" return "NOT FOUND" messages is indicative of a failure to support member communications at best -- an indifference to member communications at least; this is not the communication policy of a viable and concerned volunteer organization.

It does not reflect well on the National Rifle Organization that they have not bothered to insure easy and user-friendly communications with their membership. It does not reflect well on the National Rifle Organization that they are not pro-actively following up on new memberships, in the media (online/email) methods which have sufficed them to entice new members.

Most of all, it does not reflect well on the NRA that they are demonstrably willing to take our ... no, MY money ... but don't let me talk to them when I perceive a problem.

I would rather the NRA prove to be a caring, responsive entity which holds member communications as a primary priority.

So far, this does not characterized the policy of the NRA.

Open Range: Not?

Last Sunday I published an article (Gun Range Owner Says He's Unfairly Targeted) addressing the question of predatory legal attacks on established shooting ranges.

In this article, the 'city fathers' of League City, Texas, actively conspired with a 'developer' to force a long established shooting range so that the land could be condemned, and then sold to the developer to build homes in the area. Note that they did this on 'city time', which is supported by local taxes ... funding to which the range owner probably contributed.

After writing the article, I sent the link to our friends on The Unofficial IPSC List. I asked them to comment, and to suggest or submit any other similar stories of predation on land owned by Shooting Ranges.

I received several comments, both on the list and in personal mail. I've decided to post here the two most typical examples.

First, in a short comment which is unattributed (because I didn't ask the writer for permission to identify him when I cited him), is an example of the problems which might proliferate when a range attempts to "do the right thing":

An (unidentified) member of The Unofficial IPSC List said:

To assure the town that we were totally committed to public safety, our board of directors invited the NRA's range team to come and give us an assessment.

Huge mistake. After they were done, our 200 yard range became a 100 yard range and if they could have it their way, they would have us all shooting through cement pipes that went all the way to the targets.

Another contributer (who responded to the above quote) was Karl Rehn, of KRTRAINING.COM; an Austin, Texas firearms instructor. When asked, Karl generously allowed me to not only quote him, but to cite him by name.

Karl Rehn said:
Unfortunately that's pretty typical of the NRA Range dept's "help" to IPSC clubs.

Years ago I was a member of an IPSC club that bought land and built a nice range that was going to be a club-owned permanent facility with enough berms to run a major match including 200 yd rifle stages.

The state had recently passed a law mandating that all ranges in counties with a population over 100K comply with the NRA Range Manual -- which was a terrible law because the NRA Range Manual does not define standards for ranges.

The neighbors sued us and the judge in our county (less than 100K residents) decided that if the law was good for big counties it should apply to us too.

The NRA sent a guy that had never shot IPSC and had never seen an IPSC match. His only shooting experience was bird hunting with a shotgun in an open field.

His recommendations, if implemented, would have made it impossible to run any kind of practical shooting event.

During that period neighbors were trespassing - bringing TV news crews onto our property, and someone vandalized a bulldozer on the property.

The club went bankrupt, lost the range and sold the land to one of the neighbors that was suing us.

The only good thing that came from the case was that the state Attorney General reviewed the NRA Range Manual law and basically struck it down. That was important later when the CHL law passed and lots of little one-berm private ranges got built and certified by the state as "safe" to run the CHL shooting test.

An IDPA range in the area was vandalized a few years ago. One night someone came in, started up the bulldozer and drove it over all the props.

We did get a statewide range protection bill passed, around the time CHL passed, that provides ranges some protection against complaints about noise from those that move into an area where a range has been operational.

When I built my private range our main downrange neighbor complained about noise -- all the way to the state police firearms training unit who certifies ranges for CHL classes.

The neighbor was told that our range complied with all state laws and that he basically just had to tolerate the noise. His complaint occurred on a Sunday morning on the 3rd day of a multi-day rifle class. Since then we have stuck to mostly pistol shooting with limited long gun shooting and limited Sunday morning shooting and we've had no more complaints from neighbors.

Karl
That experience seems fairly typical, in the context of my experience that most shooting ranges are willing to make extraordinary efforts to be 'good neighbors'.

One good example is the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC), here in Oregon.

ARPC is centered on a small hill (approximate elevation: 100') which is actually a 'butte', in that it has two points of high elevation. The butte is the ultimate backstop berm for all of the ranges. Ranges include a 20+ table Bench-Rest range on the west side; a trap and skeet range on the west side; a 7-bay pistol range ("the North Range") on the North side of the butte, where every bay includes a 3-sided, roofed building with the open side toward the butte; and five more 'open' (no buildings included, at this time) shooting bays on the East side of the butte.

The North Range and the bays on the East side were used in the 2006 USPSA Multigun Nationals, the 2007 USPSA Multigun Area-1 Tournament, and the 2007 Cowboy Action (S.A.S.) "Shoot-out at Saddle Butte" Tournament.

Note that the closest neighbor is a farm house about 3/4 mile NORTH of the range. On the West, the U.S. Interstate 5 Freeway runs North/South 1/4 miles away on the other side of an orchard. On the other three sides, open fields provide a buffer zone.

Still, ARPC has a standing rule that while shooting on the North Range, the (pedestrian) doors on the covered shooting areas must be closed, to muffle the noise which may escape through these doors and thus annoy their distant neighbors.

Another example:

The Chehalem Valley Sportsman Club (home of Dundee Practical Shooters) is located immediately adjacent to a county park. It's a very nice park, and because the Dundee range is also backed up against a tall hillside, the danger of rounds leaving the range is minimized. In fact, in the bay closest to Cranberry Park, the club has an iron-clad policy of not placing targets where even a ricochet could possibly impact in the park. Neighbors include at least two wineries, which have never complained about the noise (possibly because they are located on the other side of nearby hills.

Still, the park is occasionally used in clement weather for outdoor weddings. The club has a policy of coordinating with special activities at the park. In the past several years, we have seen that weddings are often scheduled on the same day as USPSA matches. On those occasions, the club ALWAYS stops all competition and shooting for as much as an hour, to allow the solemnity of the wedding ceremony to continue without the contention of noise from the match which may reverberate from the tree-clad hills surrounding the range.

Most shooting ranges are originally placed far away from residences. However, as municipalities grow the 'neighborhood' may expand until residential housing is placed immediately adjacent to shooting ranges. The developers know that the range is there, yet they build there anyway ... and that's fine.

The problems occur when new residents decide that they are unwilling to endure the annoyance of noise from shooting ranges. If there is any fault to be assigned here, it is shared by the developers and the people who buy property in new developments. If the developer fails to inform buyers that a shooting range is in the vicinity, then the buyers should take their complaints to the developers. It may happen that the developers would be responsible for misrepresenting the neighborhood, or if they had informed the buyers that a range was in the neighborhood then the buyers are responsible for having bought property which may be subject to the annoyance of shooting in the near vicinity of their homes.

This is applicable only to noise issues.

If rounds are leaving the range and land in private property, the ranges may then be deemed responsible for either making changes in their range design, or discontinuing operations entirely.

It takes only a small number of (justifiable) complaints about 'rounds leaving the range' to require ranges to make such extensive physical reconfigurations that the range can no longer operate.

If you own a range near a municipal site which may someday be developed, you have very few option. Either you can buy up the adjacent property and keep it as a 'safe impact zone', or you can reconfigure your shooting bays ... often at similar or even greater expense.

You make that decision now, while land is 'relatively' inexpensive, or you can make it later, when your options are limited by the developers.

For more information about the NRA Range Manual, see the following links:

National Association of Shooting Ranges: ("Lessons Learned", 1996)

I have attempted to find the "NRA RANGE MANUAL", and my best Internet Surfing Efforts have been defeated. The best I can find is some extreme 'Star Wars' type gadgets here.

Apparently, a man named Richard Whiting authored a NRA Range Manual in 1988. It was available from amazon.com. Unfortunately, it is no longer available.

The Cedar Rod & Gun Club (?) wrote a Range Manual in 2004 which may provide usable information. Or not.

I tried to contact NRA directly for this information. I was unable to complete the contact because, although I joined 3 weeks ago, they haven't given me my member number. More on this later .. and I'm telling you, this is not a positive reflection on the NRA.

Friday, January 04, 2008

DC: The 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply ...

Interesting constitutional argument proposed by the DC Attorneys in their Weasel-worded attempt to squirm out from under the SCOTUS ruling on Municipal Gun Control:
WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment's provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms apply only to the federal government, not the 50 states and the District of Columbia, lawyers for the nation's capital argued Friday in a written brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pay careful attention here, because this sentence is subject to mis-reading:
The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia. In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.
When I first read this, I understood it to say that the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution only applied to Federal legislation, and that States were not bound by the terms of the Constitution.

This would imply that the Federal government was bound by constitutional restrictions, but States (and the District of Columbia) could impose laws which were Unconstitutional if the Federal Government had imposed them.

The next two sentences seemed to support that argument:
As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.
"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."
You may think: "Oh damn, they got us there!". But the Constitutional restrictions are binding upon the States, under Article IV of the Constitution of the United States:
Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

...
But D.C. erred in that it not only applied its argument solely to the 2nd Amendment, but also argued that the District of Columbia was not a "State", and as a 'special case' it was accorded 'special status'.

The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia.

In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.

As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.

"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."
This interpretation has been described as "... very creative but wrong."

How likely is this argument to be taken seriously?
Because the case addresses not only the Second Amendment but also the peculiar status of the District of Columbia as a federal enclave, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court ruling will have a direct impact on the national gun-control issue.
In other words ... nice legal position, Washington Weasels; but ultimately indefensible.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

A Clear Case for Bone Control

I wonder where the Brady Bunch was on this one?

Take a gentle, caring, inclusive milieu of "Animal House".
(Zit Joke / Food Fight!)



Add the gritty realism of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
(The Dawn of Man)


What do you get?


Man stabs another man with pork chop bone
ARDMORE -- An Oklahoma man was arrested after police say he stabbed another man in the neck with a pork chop bone during a food fight.

Police in Ardmore, Oklahoma responded to call of a fight outside a local business New Year's day. When they arrived, they found the victim covered in blood with a puncture wound to his neck.

Police arrested the suspect, 38-year-old Tony Willis a few block from the crime scene. According to authorities, Willis had blood on his clothes and they found the bone used in the attack.

The victim was treated at a local hospital and released.
Obviously the time has come for Bone Control.

(H/T: David Codrea, The War on Guns: "When Pork Chop Bones Are Outlawed ...")

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Concealed Carry, Done Right

Last week I commented on an incident where a man who just wanted to carry a weapon for self-defense in a supermarket met ignoble failure because he couldn't keep his pistol in his pocket.

This week I draw your attention to a man with the same goal, who did everything right.

From the IndyStar, I give you Charlie Merrell:
A 51-year-old man stopped a masked man from robbing a Southside grocery store and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.

Charlie Merrell was in checkout line at Bucks IGA Supermarket, 3015 S. Meridian St., when a masked man jumped a nearby counter and held a gun on a store employee at 5:17 p.m. Monday, according to a police report made public today.

While the suspect was demanding cash from the workers, the police report states that Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the robber and ordered him to put down his weapon.

When the suspect hesitated, Merrell racked the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber, Officer Jason Bockting wrote in the report.
The suspect placed his gun and a bag of cash on the counter, dropping some of the money, police said. The suspect removed his mask and lay on the floor. Merrell held the suspect at gunpoint until officers arrived and took him away in handcuffs.
In the 252 comments (still counting), there is some discussion about the sentence:
"When the suspect hesitated, Merrell racked the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber ..."

In the story, it's not clear why Merrell racked his slide. Some people thought he engaged an armed robber with a pistol which was in Condition 3 (The chamber is empty and hammer is down with a charged magazine in the gun.)

I'm sure it's possible that Merrell was in Condition 3, but it's just as possible that he was in Condition 1 (Also known as "cocked and locked," means a round is in the chamber, the hammer is cocked, and the manual thumb safety on the side of the frame is applied) and merely racked the slide to take psychological advantage of the "Ka-CHUNK!" factor.

For that matter, it's just as possible that Merrell presented his pistol in Condition 0 (A round is in the chamber, hammer is cocked, and the safety is off.)

The 'Ka-CHUNK!" factor is here defined as the terrifying effect on a predator when he hears a defender either rack the pump on a 12-guage shotgun, or rack the slide on a pistol.

Ka-CHUNK!

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


The movies and television make much of a cop with a pointed gun shouting such cogent phrases as "Freeze, Dog-Breath!" and "Stop or I'll shoot!". In real life, there's no reason for such histrionics. Think of it as a 'talk to the hand' moment.

Step 1: Get the predator's attention.
Step 2: Ka-CHUNK!
Step 3: pick up the predator's weapon and the bag-o-loot while the police are taking their time riding to the scene of the (failed) crime.

This is a much nicer resolution that that which we have recently seen in "Gun Free Zones", don't you think?

So do I.

Hope and Glory in Iraq

I've been aware of Bill Wittle at Eject! Eject! Eject! for a couple of years, but I have not been a regular reader.

My loss.

Thanks to Geek with a .45, I've been directed to Wittle's latest (as of this date) two-part oddyssey into the attitudes of Americans and analysis of what it takes to win a war ... or more precisely, what it takes to make a peace.

I'm humbled, and encouraged. Wittle is an inspired journal writer whose theme here is not 'how to win a war through superior firepower', but 'how to win a peace by showing that we are a people who love and desire peace'. This is badly expressed, and I apologize for my meager word-smithing skills. The clumsy phrases do, however, serve to give you the general idea of Wittle's message.

Part 1: Glory ... which has absolutely nothing at all to do with Glory as it is usually defined.

Part 2: Hope ... which has something to do with war, and everything to do with achieving a peace for a beautiful people who deserve nothing less.

Not us for us, but for them.

Peace in the Middle East is possible. This has been a dream, but now we may see that it is not an unobtainable goal when two peace-loving cultures share that dream. We do not strive to trade "Blood for Oil". We only hope to bring peace to a troubled land.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Benchmark

As I did in the beginning of 2007, now that it's 2008 it's time to thank the readers of this IPSC USPSA shooting blog.

Note the strike-out; one of the most significant issues (for readers of this blog) introduced in January: the process which eventually resulted in the 2008 USPSA Rule Book (see 1/16/07 "USPSA Rules Changes: 2008"). This is significant because for the first time in my 23+ years of Practical Shooting Competition (aka "Action Shooting") the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) now has its own book of rules which has absolutely no reference to International rules as established and maintained by the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). You'll see references to IPSC from time to time, but from this day forward when I talk about "Practical Shooting" in the United States of America, I'll be using USPSA rather than IPSC.

Kind of a shame, really. After all of these years, the expression IPSC (IP-SICK) just sort of rolls off the tongue. As SWMBO and I discussed today, it's difficult to communicate with the term "YUSP'SAH" (USPSA).

As an illustration, we also offered (1/14/07) "Winter IPSC Is Cool".

In February, we talked (2/12/07) about USPSA's unprecedented "four consecative years of sustained growth". We also mentioned (2/20/07) the ZUMBO meltdown, and (2/23/07) more about the USPSA New Rule Book.

March brought a lot of discussion about the differences between the then-current IPSC/USPSA rulebook and the proposed 2008 USPSA New Rule Book. I started with an extensive exhaustive compare/contrast exercise titled (3/1/07) "USPSA New Rule Book Resources", and included several specific illustrations of 'current' rules which were subject to improvement OR, rules which had (to my mind) been improved. Specifically, (3/3/07) 1.2.1 "General Courses of Fire", (3/5/07) 2.2.1 "Extend Rearward to Infinity" (See also a follow-up on 3/24/07, "Extend Into Infinity", with videos),

We also talked a couple of times about the Oregon "Range Nazi" bill, SB1012, once March 15 and again on March 21.

We also introduced the first Guest Blog by Stan Penkala(3/19), and discussed the overthrow of (3/20) the DC Gun Ban and , on March 27, introduced the "Evil 'Texas Star'", about which we were bound to learn more.

April was a month of extremes. I was elated that I took a co-worker to the range, and he had a great time. Then Remington was sold (see also here and here )to the international consortium Cereberus, followed immediately by a Los Angeles "Shooting Bill of Rights" which incorporated egregious municipal measures which would have made it difficult, if not impossible to exercise RKBA rights there.

Then on April 16, the massacre at Virginia Tech led to reactions on April 17.

"Buy a Gun Day" may have been ill-timed in this context, but some of us refused to allow the societal misanthrope of a madman compromise our own second amendment rights.

And if to underscore the difference between true evil and virtual evil, on April 29 I introduced Evil Bill and the Evil Oregon Star.


On May 1, 2007, I wrote a long post ("Target Control") about the Secretary of IPSC and his unilateral sanctions about the use of the Texas Star target in IPSC matches. This earned me (on May 15), the honor of being #2 on his personal "2006 Hostility to IPSC Award". I remain humbled by the honor, which as of this date remains available here. My only regret is that I am unable to achieve the coveted #1 spot, but I continue to strive for excellence.

I also mentioned the Pistol Caliber Carbine match on May 6, and included another Guest Article on the "CX4 Storm (Beretta) Magazine Adaption".

And finally, I was able to provide video footage of the Evil Bill's Evil Oregon Star Version 1.1.

June was, surprisingly (to me) the beginning of a long period when local 'club matches' were interrupted by Major Matches. I didn't spend as much time (for the next 7 months) shooting as much as I would prefer, but I still found subjects for commentary.

I got to shoot IPSC Steel for the first time at the COSSA range in Bend, and when ARPC presented a 'preview' of stages slated for the Nationals, I found some potential stage design problems in both "Home Run" and "Go Sit In The Corner". We also highlighted problems with BATFE procedures when reviewing firearms dealer records, as reported by Gun Owners of America.

July started out with the USPSA Area 1 Multigun Tournament (see also here and here and here .. and others) and was almost immediately followed by the R&R Racing Multigun Match. (Note: the R&R match included the exciting "Doors" stage, where so many match-nerves events caused personal meltdowns. A series of photographs where B. Grams paster-blasted an IPSC target with a .223 at close range ended up as a short photo opportunity in "The Front Sight" magazine.)

We also had the Columbia Cascade Section Tournament, and a follow-up on California Gun-Banner articles with this one which essentially trashed the gun-shop business in San Francisco. No wonder I moved out of there in 1976!~

August ... I met Ryan "Red" Horsley (not personally, only via email) of Red's Gun Shop in Idaho. This is a relationship which has continued as I have received links to every post he has written since then in his continuing battle against the predations of ATF agents. Someone needs to keep a finger on those ho-dads, and Red is there for us.

Also, my computer got friend by the Blue Bird of Happiness, and I had to buy a new one; I enjoyed an extended dialogue (kind of) with with a Brit who signs himself "The ASBO-monger" and who believes that Gun Control Works; ARPC hosted the 2007 Single Action Society (SAS) "Shootout at Saddle Butte"; the USPSA Elections were heating up; we had some more discussion about the 2008 USPSA Rule Book; and there was a description about an Open Carry issue in Virginia.


September ... the 2007 Croc Match invited a lot of controversy, as did California AB1417 ('microstamping of ammunition') for entirely different reasons; Oregon faced the question of whether a school teacher should be allowed to arm herself with a gun ... and Oregon flinched. This blue state hasn't enough guts to recognize the Constitution in the face of the "if it saves just one child ..." context. More on the DC Gun Ban legislation; Albany Rifle & Pistol Club presents back to back matches -- the 11th annual Single Stack Tournament, and the Third Annual Oregon Glock Championship (also here); I trash the NRA leadership (see December for a follow-up); more discussion on the Texas Star (with video, of course).


October ... "Gun Free Zones": school shooting in Cleveland High School (prophetic? See below); "Gun Control Doctors": a 3-part commentary (see also here) on physicians who lobby for gun-control issues to their patients during routine examinations; a premature list of the 'most popular articles of 2007'; Not Dead Yet - Gary, Indiana sues S&W et al ... a one-hour video showing how the municipality may actually be allowed to continue its 1999 suit against firearms manufacturers despite recent SCOTUS rulings; USPSA Election Results; (California governor) "Schwarzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill"; Concealed Carry on Campus (see also Empty Holster Week); another "Gun Free Zone" parody (see below.)


November ... Measure 50 in Oregon (union support of a state constitutional amendment); STI refuses to accept California Microstamping Restrictions; USPSA Level II Certification class (Albany Rifle & Pistol Club) emphasizes USPSA rules, not IPSC rules!;


December ...

.