Mama? What's "Satire"?

Obama Scraps Idea of Billing Vets for Service-Related Injuries

A couple of days ago a friend forwarded an email to me, with the title "This Guy Is Nuts!".

My friend had (along with a dozen other people) received from a friend of his; THAT friend had (along with a dozen other people) received it from another friend. And so on and so on. I don't know how many people were sent the text of the email, but I do know one thing:

It wasn't true.

Here is (a very short sample) of the text that was sent:

Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal

.
The "quote" goes on to paint President Obama in an even worse light. And then the quote is followed by the comment:

I'm guessing that everyone, other than the 20-25 percent hardcore liberals in the US , will agree that this is another example of why Obama is the worst president in American history. Remind everyone over-and-over how this man thinks

Want to see the WHOLE Quote? Easy to do, you can go directly to the source, which would be

JOHN SEMMENS: Semi-News -- A Satirical Look at Recent News

... for March 21, 2009.

Did you get the title of the website? "...SATIRICAL..."

That doesn't mean that's what Obama said, that's just somebody deliberately twisting the situation for the sake of humor.

But the folks who are sending this out to their friends, and their friends friends, and their friends friends friends (I count over SIXTY people on the distribution lists I see, not counting my own email address as one of the recipients) -- they don't realize that this is a lie. They see the satire, but they just don't get it. They accept it as the truth because some good ol' boy they never heard of before said it, so they just mindlessly pass it on.

It took me less than one minute to discover that it was a lie. I googled "Obama Military Insurance" and came up with this SNOPES reference: and that article included a link to the original satirical article from the march 21, 2009, in the Arizona Conservative.

There was also an explanatory article in the Stars&Stripes ... they got it right.

Also in TRUTH OR FICTION ... they were also able to identify the basic premise (truth) and separate it from the satirical portion (fiction).

Obama's attempt to put some of the military expenses (medical insurance) off onto private insurance companies is bad enough, especially considering that he has since crammed national health insurance down our collective throats. But that was cancelled when it proved to be not only unpopular, but infeasible. The rest of the letter, and the Arizona Conservative satire article, was all made up. It was a lie, and was published just ten days before April Fools Day.
Get it?

But automatically buying into Satire as truth, and mindlessly, unthinkingly and irresponsibly passing it on to friends and families is not the best way to convince them that the American President is incompetent; instead it only suggests that we are incompetent, if we can't even check the validity of our second-hand accusations.

Unfortunately, there is a moral to this story (and I'm the guy who hates morality tales):

If you receive an email suggesting that somebody you don't like did something you don't like. don't just blindly pass it on to 37 of your most intimate friends. Instead, first check it out. At least look it up on GOOGLE (if you don't already know any reliable anti-urban-legend websites) and go to at least 2 or three referenced websites so you can get a better idea of the answer to this question:

Who is the fool here?

Stumble It!

Here Comes da Judge!

Ga. judge shoots, kills man breaking into his home - Breaking News - Macon.com

Here's the story:

Augusta, Georgia: 20 year-old wanna-be hood John E. Howard Jr. and his (still-unidentified) buddy pick a house at random in the middle of the night and break into it by throwing a brick through a window.

Well, that's subtle. Apparently they neither knew, nor cared, whether anybody was home.

Somebody was.

The homeowner, Superior Court Judge J. Carlisle Overstreet (65) hears the noise and calls 911.

No, I'm kidding.

Overstreet grabs a gun, and prowls the house looking for the voices he heard. According to the Macon, Ga. newspaper report:

"The suspect, wearing a bandanna over his face and socks covering both hands, was coming down the stairs toward Overstreet," Strength told reporters Friday. "Overstreet fired one time at the suspect, hitting him in the chest."

THEN the judge calls 911 ... to pick up the trash.

The other burglar made it out of the house alive, with a lap-top computer. Guess he figured it wasn't enough to live through his really bad career choice; he had to make a profit on the deal. Bet he doesn't find another 'friend' willing to join him in a little easy-money burglary.

Trash-boy made it to the hospital, then to the morgue without passing "GO". Nice Shooting, Your Honor!


THE MONEY QUOTE:

Police didn't find a gun on Trash-boy, but His Honor has been exonerated of any criminal charges. In the words ... which should NOT be forgotten ... of Richmond County Sheriff Ronald Strength:

"You're protecting yourself, ... You don't have time to say, 'Sir, are you here just to steal something or are you here to shoot me?'"

If there were more people like Overstreet and Strength, there would be fewer people like John E. Howard Jr.
Well, as of now there are one fewer than there were last month. If Kim De Tuit was still blogging, this would increment his "Goblin Count" by one.

Stumble It!

The Best Match I Never Attended

At the beginning of this month, The Hobo Brasser made the generous offer to load 1,000 rounds of ammunition so I would be able to shoot while the XL650 was being 'rehabbed' by Dillon. While I have been named A Fool by my detractors, I proved them all wrong by quickly accepting.

When I got home, I grabbed a big bunch of Montana Gold 115gr hollow-point bullets, an unopened four-pound keg of Vitha Vourhi N350 powder, all of the Small Rifle primers I could find, and three 100-round bags of new, unprimed Winchester .38 Super brass. The next weekend, I wheeled up to Canby and delivered them to Chez Hobo. I also told him the powder-weight to load them, and included a handful of rounds I had loaded and one of my STI magazines, so he could confirm and check the correct over-all length of the loaded cartridge.

I also ordered another 1,000 Winchester brass, and when they arrived from Dillon I grabbed two bags out of the box and took the other 8 bags up to HB, also. Yes, that adds up to 1,100 cases. I had given him a total of 1,200 primers, as well ... primers disappear magically during the reloading process, and sometimes you get a bad load, so I wanted to make sure he had all the components to actually build 1,000 shootable rounds.

And if he happened to just keep loading until he had filled all the cases? Well, if he was such a good friend to make a generous offer, I'm friend enough to milk it. Who knows? Someday I may be in a position to do him a favor. It would be unkind of me to make him feel guilty if he accepted. This way ... he owes me one.


Last week HB emailed to say he had finished loading the ammunition, and when did I want to pick them up? I suggested that I get them from him at the monthly Dundee match (which was this weekend), and since we usually squad together that seemed a reasonable solution.

[Actually, we usually manage to squad with an amiable group of folks and we all have a good time. HB and I enjoy a camaraderie of exchanging verbal quips and cheap-shots, kind of like Don Ameche and Frances Langford as The Bickersons. Neither of us can shoot all that well, but we enjoy the social occasion at least as much as we do the competition.]

I was really looking forward to the Saturday match. Friday evening I spend a couple of hours an hour at least 15 minutes getting all of my gear together, along with a box of books and a bottle of 14 year old Jamesons' as a thank-you gift to HB. I laid out a Springfield Armory t-shirt to wear to the match, climbed in bed and waited for sleep to overcome me.

And waited.

Couldn't sleep. Finally I got up and too a sleeping draught, and crawled back in bed to wait for sleep, or morning ... whichever came first.

And waited.

At 6am I was still waiting for sleep, and wondering if I shouldn't just get up and get started.

The next thing I knew, it was 9:30am. The sun was shining, and I had managed to sleep through two alarms. This is not good. The match starts promptly at 9am, and the range was 80 miles away over country roads. What to do, what to do?

So I took the coward's way out, and went back to sleep for another hour.

Two cups of coffee later I felt alert enough to shower, dress, load the car and headed for the range. By then it was noon, but I figured they wouldn't get off the range until 2pm. I had just time to drive to the range, meet HB and get the reloads, and then we could go to our traditional lunch of Linguica Pizza at the Abby's Pizza Parlor in Newburg. I could do this.

[Incidently, Linquica Pizza is the super-secret power lunch of IPSC shooters the world over. As far as I know, you can only get it at the Abby's Pizza Parlor in Newburg. How IPSC shooters all over the rest of the world get their power lunch, I'll never know. I guess that's the secret.]

On the drive up I called HB on his cell phone. I knew he wouldn't hear the phone ring, but he might see the missed call, and know to call me when he saw it. And he did, and called me back. But I had changed my ring-tone last week and I couldn't hear it over my new ZZ Tops CD which I was playing as I drove. About half-way to the range I checked my phone, discovered I had a message from HB. He found the missed call, and .... save the reading time here and just assume a short series of voice mail exchanged.

When I got to the range at a quarter of two, the competitor cars were already leaving. I saw a ridiculous day-glow orange Subaru Forrester stop in the middle of the flow, and HB leaned out the door and waved to me. We pulled off the road, and agreed to meet at Abby's and exchange cartons of 'stuff'' there.

Turns out the Subaru was a loaner. His pickup had broken down ... for the second time this summer ... and he was driving around in this "Oregon's Answer to the Pimp-mobile". Not hard to tell why the shop used it as a loaner car. Who would steal it?

I bought the pizza, HB bought the beer. As the beertender was pouring a small pitcher of wheat-bear, HB was telling me about his match. He decided to shoot Single-Stack this time, and there was a stage where you start with your pistol on the top of a barrel. Apparently, when he picked up the single-stack (last time I looked, it was a well-used Charles Daly ... a brand which is now totally defunct), and the front sight fell off. After he finished the stage "I only got one miss!", he got the squad to search for the sight in the gravel. Fortunately, they found it. So he put a piece of tape in the dovetail, pounded the front sight back in, sighted it in (that's a first) and finished the match.

I had to interrupt him.

"How did you know the front sight fell off? Did someone tell you?" I asked him.

"Huh? What do you mean?"

"Well", I answered, "it's not as if you ever actually LOOK at the damn thing."

Yes, I DID wait until he had paid for the beer.

While we were waiting for the pizza to burn, he started telling me about the match. "Great match", he said. "Interesting stages. I had a lot of fun. Weather was perfect. I didn't do all that well, but gee I sure had fun."

"Stop, stop" I said. " I don't want to hear about a great match. I don't want to hear you had fun. I missed it. I don't want to have missed a great match, I want to hear that it was a crummy match, the stages were cheezy, everybody had a lot of trouble ... don't make me think I missed anything by oversleeping!"

"Oh, gee, I'm sorry", he said. "Okay, you don't want to hear about having missed the best match you never went to. I won't tell you about it."

And then he smiled.

The bastard. I never liked him, anyway.

....

This is my revenge.

"You realize, of course, that I finally have something to write in the Blog about tonite?"

"Oh", he said. "This is BlogMeat, right"

Damn straight.

That's when he told me that he 'might have' had a couple of problems with the ammo. A couple of primers showed up in the primer-discard tray. They were crushed, he said. He didn't know when that happened, but I "might want to check the ammunition" before I shoot it, he said.

Eleven Hundred Rounds.

If you shoot IPSC in Oregon, you may someday see a snowy-haired, decrepit Senior Citizen hunched over picking up brass with all the fervor of a hobo picking up return-for-deposit beer bottles. If you do, my best advice to you is: don't muck with him.

That's all I'm saying.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Stumble It!

Cruiser cam catches 100 mph crash

Cruiser cam catches 100 mph crash

I thought this was pretty freaking amazing, speaking as a student of human foibles, that a single 18-year old driver could find himself in such an incredibly violent situation ... and live through it. (Last I heard, he was still in critical condition.)

The video in the article is the original, and the article also has links to follow-up information.

But the video below has a higher quality to it.

Stumble It!

Another Local Hero: Iaian Harrison

Another Oregonian TV winner: Sherwood's Iain Harrison and 'Top Shot' | OregonLive.com

On the finale of the first season of the History channel series, "Top Shot," which aired Aug. 15, Harrison nailed a daunting final challenge, which involved throwing knives, shooting an arrow and target shooting. As the champ, the British-born Harrison wins $100,000 -- and the title of "Top Shot."

I've seen Iian shoot pistol, and he is very good. But I had no idea that he was also skilled in knife-throwing and archery.

And I've never known how to spell his name.

He's another Oregon shooter, living in Sherwood (very conveniently located about a mile from the Tri-County Gun Club). He and his wife are seen together at local matches ... much more often than I am.

He may be at the Dundee match this weekend. If you see him, be sure to congratulate him on his win.

And ... don't ask him for a loan. Just content yourself with admiring the expensive pistols which they

Stumble It!

Local Hero

A local hero here in Oregon has been announced by the Shooting Wire

Leonard Scores Open Rimfire Steel Challenge Win

(Click the link above for the full article)

Ryan Leonard is the son of Nick Leonard, who has been running the Speed Steel matches at Tri County Gun Club for ... well, the better part of the last decade.

Nick has always been an extremely competitive shooter. He either wins, or he crashes and burns ... badly. There are no half-hearted attempts when Nick shoots; he always gives 110%, and he is always trying to win.

Nick started Ryan shooting in competition when Ryan was about 10 years old. (Heck, he may have been younger.) Ryan learned to be as competitive as Nick, but had the advantage of starting earlier in life, and the further advantage of having a great coach.

Nick always ensured the Ryan had good equipment, lots of practice, and the advice of a seasoned shooter. That would be Nick. That was as true for IPSC/USPSA competition as it was for Steel Challenge.

In the past couple of years, as Ryan became even more proficient and self-confident, Nick may have focused more on Ryan's training and maturation as a competitive shooter than on his own competitiveness. Whatever the reason, Ryan has become one of the stronger young shooters in both disciplines.

Keep your eye on this young man. When I saw them at the Dundee match last month, Ryan had grown in height, bulk and confidence. Since then he WON the Columbia Cascade Championship as an Open/Master Class shooter, coming in a comfortable 6% ahead the next closest competitor (also a Master Class shooter), and beating the nearest GM/Open shooter by 9%.

And then he won the Open Rimfire Steel Challenge:

PIRU, Calif. - When the last shots were fired in the Steel Challenge's Open Rimfire pistol event, it was 17-year-old Ryan Leonard of Oregon City, Oregon, who outgunned the likes of Glock's Dave Sevigny, Blackhawk's Todd Jarrett and Smith &Wesson's B.J. Norris to claim the World Speed Shooting Championship title.

Leonard posted the fastest score on three of the eight stages - 5 To Go, Smoke & Hope and Outer Limits - to finish in a final time of 69.76 seconds to edge out Team Glock's captain Dave Sevigny of Smyrna, Ga. by 1.45 seconds.

Congratulations to both Nick and Ryan. I think you'll be seeing Ryan winning in Level III USPSA competition, too. Ryan has outgrown the local field, and should be ready to challenge the National Best in even more competitive fields.

Stumble It!

Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition - Washington Times

AUDIO - Rep. Pelosi calls for investigation of WTC mosque opposition - Washington Times

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has suggested that people who voice opposition to the construction of a Mosque near the Twin Towers "Ground Zero" site should be investigated.

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how ... this opposition to the mosque is being funded,"

This is the first I've heard that someone wants this kind of investigation. But I only spend a couple of hours a day reading the news; apparently I have not been as well-informed as I thought.

All I've seen are the comments from readers who have voiced opposition on the basis of the concept that 911 was not an attack on New York City, but on America ... and that in the minds of most Americans, "Ground Zero" has become as near to a Holy site as any which has been consecrated by construction of a religious edifice.

Also, I've read a lot of commentary to the effect that this mosque (1) represents a "foot on the neck" of America, or a monument to the damage caused by the attack; and (2) that there must be some reason other than that which has been stated, to choose this specific site for construction of a $100 million Mosque.

That last is especially curious, since New York City is said to already contain over 100 Mosques.

But getting back to Pelosi: I wondered, when I read this, just WHO is going to run this investigation?

Then I read this New York Times article (republished) titled: "Civilians to take U.S. Lead after Military Leaves".

The article addresses concerns about how American support of Iraq will be continued as the Military Bug-out continues.

By October 2011, the State Department will assume responsibility for training the Iraqi police, a task that will largely be carried out by contractors. With no American soldiers to defuse sectarian tensions in northern Iraq, it will be up to American diplomats in two new $100 million outposts to head off potential confrontations between the Iraqi Army and Kurdish pesh merga forces.

Hmm ... the State Department. That would be Hillary Clinton, right?

This extends HillaryCare to its logical absurdity.

Poor Iraqis, relying on Hillary diplomats to keep them safe.

You people are screwed. Screwed.

So, is Hillary also going to be responsible for undermining both the American First Amendment? Will she be the one who investigates the protests which are obviously a grass-roots uprising? If so, Americans are screwed, too.

What idiot let the State Department take responsibility for ... well for anything? A good president is one who keeps the Department of State firmly under his thumb.

Hmmmm????

Stumble It!

That's a lot of bull!

Bull leaps into bullring stands in Spain, 40 hurt

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I know you can watch this in gigantic format on the original MSNBC link (see above), but I was impressed.

Stumble It!

Rep. Maxine Waters - It's Bush's Fault!

Rep. Maxine Waters Refutes Ethics Charges - ABC News

Representative Maxine Waters has been brought up on charges from the House Ethics Committee on the grounds that she used her congressional influence for the betterment of OneUnited Bank ... a commercial enterprise in which her husband has a $350,000 investment.

Her defense is that she wanted to resolve a 'general' lapse in governmental assistance to financial institutions, but the Bush Treasury Department was so slow in responding to her ... proposal that by the time they got around to scheduling a meeting only one bank showed up at the meeting.

That bank was OneUnited Bank.

When the meeting was held, OneUnited was the only bank represented, according to the report. A lawyer for the National Bankers Assn. also was present.

That, the Office of Congressional Ethics said, was "cause for concern,'' given that the National Bankers Assn. represented 103 banks, including two in the Washington area.

Waters, one of the most Liberal congress-critters (and a representative from California), has called for the earliest possible hearings, so that she may state her case.

She has also fallen into the political trap of ascribing ANY negative result from congressional intercession to the presidential administration of former President George W. Bush.

As I said earlier: if I had known that there was so much HUMOR in national politics, I would not have attempted to avoid the subject, in recent months.

This illustrates the universal truth about Liberal Politicians: no matter what the subject, or the timing, whatever happens to cast a negative interpretation on Liberal politicians ...

.... it's always George Bush's Fault!

(Does this have any relationship to Waters' desire to nationalize the Petroleum Industry? )

"This Liberal would be all about socialisin .. uh ... uh ... basically .... taking over .... and the government would be running all of your companies."

Yeah, like the government has done so well in the past couple of years running the country, let alone running an actual for-profit industry.


As my friend Hobo Brasser has so often said (courtesy of Jimmy Buffett): "If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane."

This Liberal (Mad Dog Waters) is obviously unable to laugh. Might be a vitamin deficiency. Or a salt-shaker deficiency. She should see her physician.)

Stumble It!

Rolling Stone reporter not allowed to "embed"

Rolling Stone reporter denied embed after McChrystal piece - CNN.com

"The Rolling Stone magazine journalist whose article about Gen. Stanley McChrystal helped end the Afghanistan commander's career has been denied permission to embed with a military unit in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman told CNN Wednesday."

The writer was obviously, disappointed. It appears that he thought his career plans had been unfairly undermined by the Pentagon decision not to 'embed' him with a military unit in "The Sandbox".

Interesting article, you may wish to read it. Hastings is right, there is obvious aversion on the part of Military commanders in a War Zone to accept him as an "embedded correspondant".

One wonders why? Could it be that his last series of interviews with our fighting men and women resulted in the relief from command of one of the most successful Generals of the entire Middle Eastern Command?

The cited article includes segments of a Larry King interview. One memorable quote was when Hastings said: "If the White House had wanted to 'sweep this thing under the rug', they could have done that".

Sure. The article was published in a popular American magazine, and was clearly critical of the President's military decisions.

Another question from King was: "What do you think is going to happen to him (McCrystal), Michael?"

Hastings' answer: "I'm not sure, I think he's going to open a book store ...".


General George S. Patton made many comments critical of the current administration during WWII. He was counseled by his peers and military superiors against such intemperate comments, and was (for a while) relegated to posts which were not on the Front Line of battle.

But he never was treated to such an ignominious dismissal.

I, for one, am glad to hear that Hastings will not be reporting the "War News" At this time, it's not clear whether his career has been embellished or tarnished by this article. We can only assume that it has been embellished for his 'fearless determination to print the truth', no matter how much his perceived 'truth' has damaged current Military efforts in the Middle East.

But there's no obvious reason why current Military Commanders should readily agree to accepting Michael Hastings as an "embedded correspondent".

The man (Michael Hastings) is a quisling, nothing more and nothing less. His technical skills as a writer are immaterial in this context.

For now, he is the 21's Century's equivalent of Lord HaHa.

As a Military Spokesman told CNN News Wednesday:

"Embeds are a privilege, not a right. The unit decided they didn't feel the trust necessary for an embed. They declined,"

Stumble It!

Politically Incorrect

I've tried hard -- so very hard -- to minimize the amount of political commentary here. This is suppose to be about "shooting sports" and cultural issues.

Please understand that the following photo doesn't fit either of these categories. It's just so darn funny I almost spewed a sip of decent Canadian Whiskey Ice Water on my keyboard when I saw it. It's included here strictly for its HUMOR value.


The funny thing, judging by the 'other' sign seen in the picture, is that this seems to be a protest rally organized by "ANSWERcoalition.org" Which is a group of folks who ... judging by the sidebar articles on their website ... are decidedly, uh, "Liberals".

Well, then that makes it all right, doesn't it?


If I had realized that Politics involves so much humor, I might not have been so diligent about censoring the Political aspects from this blog.

Which is why, when I listed my Quotes (in the blue area, above) for this week, I included one by Nicolas Boileau:

"Sometimes a fool makes a good suggestion."


(A hat-tip to Randy S.)

Stumble It!

"They Also Serve, Who Only Sit and Wait"

Soldiers returning from war surprise kids, loved ones. NSFW b/c you will bawl your eyes out (video) : theCHIVE

This video is featured today for Sgt. Adam, his father Bill, and all their combined family.

And for my family, and for my Son's family.

And for all the family and loved ones of those men and women who have put their life on hold while they serve their country. It's one way of saying "Thank you for your service", and "Welcome home!"

It's ten minutes long, and I suggest you close your door while you watch it. If you don't like "Schmaltzy" videos that make you feel ... human ... maybe this isn't for you.

Too bad. You should go see your doctor. Maybe it's a vitamin deficiency.

Stumble It!

Gun Control: About Control, not about Guns!

The Smallest Minority

You may recall that in 2008 I spent a considerable amount of time talking about two proposals to physically trace the origin of a firearm from which a bullet was fired. This has always been presented as an attempt to solve crime.

Essentially, these were various ways in which unique numbers would be 'microstamped' on either the bullet, or the cartridge case. The 'unique numbers' (or other unique identifying characteristics) would all Law Enforcement agencies to identify ... ultimately .. the person who fired the bullet during the commission of a crime.

There have been three methodologies defined. Two of them are new, untested and require that laws be passed at either the State or Federal level; they require that either the ammunition or the firearm used will emboss an unique identifier on the ammunition itself.

ENCODED AMMUNITION:

The first, and least practical approach, is that each unit of ammunition (a 'box' ... usually 20 rounds for rifle ammunition, typically 50 rounds for pistol ammunition) be pre-stamped during the manufacturing process. When purchasing the ammunition, the buyer must provide incontrovertible identification of name, address, and such demographic information as the individual state may deem advisable. That is linked with the specific encoded number of the individual 'unit' of ammunition. In each box of ammunition, all individual rounds are pre-stamped with a identifying mark, usually a number, and this mark is not present on ANY other unit or box of ammunition.

The intent is that the purchaser of ammunition would be readily identifiable by reading the microstamped identifier on either the bullet or the cartridge case (either or both of which were usually, in the bills of the various states proposing this law required to be encoded).

In a mass-production process, this approach is obviously unsupportable. The waste is incalculable, if even a single round must be rejected during the inspection phase; then all other rounds in that unit must be rejected also, and the necessary paperwork to certify that the number is 'rejected' would be beyond all but the most expensive procedures. The cost ammunition would be enormous, and the cost of governmental oversight would be absurd.

I have discussed this in slightly more detail here, and perhaps elsewhere.


MICROSTAMPING AMMUNITION:

In this scenario, there is no burden upon the ammunition manufacturers to accommodate difficult and absurd requirements to match 20 or 50 (or more) units to a single box of ammunition. Instead, the imposition is on the manufacturers of firearms.

New firearms would be required to emboss upon the breech-face of each firearm the produce an unique identifier, which would be 'related' to the firearm serial number. This would also be entered in a National Database, which includes also the description of the firearm .. type, model, etc. Presumably, upon retail purchase of each firearm the new owner information would also be entered into the same, or a related database.

There are as many objections to this process as to the Encoded Ammunition proposal, not the least is that this de facto constitutes Firearm Registration ... it would be a permanent record.

Of course, the people who propose to provide the technology are as adamant as those who provide Encoded Ammunition that it is reliable, unalterable, and easy to use. And of course both the technology and the claims are untested and unsupported by simple logic.

First, the identifier would only be embossed on the case, not on the bullet. Then consider that the microstamping on the case would only be usable by police if the case was found at the scene of the crime ... which immediately makes it unusable for revolvers (which do not eject a case when fired).

There is no evidence that a 'dirty gun' would impress a clear impression of the identifier on the base of the ejected brass, and depending on the extent and volume of the base of the brass might be dedicated to the manufacturer's headstamp, some rounds of ammunition may be less liable to display the entire identifier than others.

Of course, there is no reason to expect that a gun owner (who may not be the original retail purchaser) will not deface the breech face of the gun to obscure or eliminate the embossed identifier. It would have to be a raised stamping or engraving to make a readable impression on the brass, so it would be easy to remove by a dremel tool, or even a hone.

But it's not necessary to remove the impression by the physical means. The slide on a semi-automatic pistol, for example, is only a 'part'. How difficult would it be to buy a replacement part? The serial number is on the frame: is the Federal Government going to impose serialization requirements on a slide, similar to that already required on a 'firearm' (the frame)? Imagine the expense and bureaucratic burden that would be for a firearm owner?


No, this is no more usable or practical than the "Encoded Ammunition" scenario.

I have discussed this in slightly more detail here, and perhaps elsewhere.


BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING:

Finally this discussion gets down to the purpose of this article. Existing technology has historically been used to match ammunition components (bullet, case) to the firearm which fired the ammunition round by dint of either the striations on the bullet ... which reveals a profile of the barrel through which it has been fired ... or 'tool marks' on the case.

The bullet striations application is familiar to all of us who watch television. Two bullets are compared ... one from the crime scene, the other from a test round fired by a suspect firearm ... and both the rifling and 'supplemental' marks on the bullet (caused by wear on the barrel) will, supposedly, allow Law Enforcement Ballistic Forensic Examiners to definitively determine that a specific bullet has been fired by a specific firearm.

(More on this in a moment.)

An alternative approach is based on the theory that the cartridge case is similarly marked when a round of ammunition is fired. Usually this involves primer indentation caused by the unique profile of the firing pin, but also considers the mark of the ejector, and such striations on the case due to any unique marks caused by unique characteristics of the chamber which may 'scratch' the surface of the case.

If this last sentence seems carefully composed, that's because it is. The hypothetical marks may be caused by accumulated powder residue left by the firing of previous rounds through the barrel, imperfections or tool-marks imposed upon the chamber during manufacture, or ... well, one is left to one's own imagination as to the chain of events which may create unique identifiers on the cartridge case. It's easy to imagine that this combination of 'marks' might change during repetitive firing, and dependent on too many environmental factors (including cleaning) to be enumerated.

Which brings us to the original article from Mr. Kevin Baker (not "Bacon") in The Smallest Minority article of January 14, 2005.

We wouldn't want you to take our word for it, so this is an excellent time for you to read the entire article "Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (and Won't) Work".

Ignoring that the 'ballistic fingerprinting' is dependent on the failure of the firearm to change the components of the firearm (slide, firing pin, barrel), Baker emphasizes three things:

1. The validity of the approach is flawed because you have to have a comparison round to identify the firearm. The legal approach is to require firearm manufacturers to provide one (or two) sample fired cartridges which will be electronically scanned and entered into a Federal Database.
2. This sample is taken with a new firearm, one which has either never been fired, or has only been test-fired a very limited number of times. (Contrary to popular belief, new firearms are not typically 'test fired' before being made available for purchase. Some very expensive and exotic firearms are, but this is not the usual practice for most manufacturers.)
3. After a very limited amount of use, most firearms will 'imprint' upon the fired cartridge a decidedly different variety of scrapes, striations, etc.

But the most IMPORTANT consideration reported by Mr. Baker is that even brand new never-fired guns will imprint differently on different ammunition!

Breach marks, chamber marks, firing-pin indentations .. all are different on different brands of ammunition, different hardness of primers, different loads and bullets which result in different velocities (and, assumedly chamber pressures) will result in different markings.

In actual tests of new firearms, even with the same ammunition from the same manufacturer and from the same lot, tests were unable to match guns which fired the ammunition, even from a very restricted number of test firearms!

___________________________________________

Even if you choose not to read Bacon's article (if only to see the citations for his sources, at the end of the article), you should not exit this without reading his ultimate conclusion. I'll make it easy for you; here it is:

UPDATE, 1/19: This is probably the most linked and most viewed piece I've written to date. Thanks to everyone who has commented and pointed readers this way (though I'm surprised I haven't seen a single hate-bomb out of the two thousand or so who've read this.) One commenter over at Chicago Boyz made an observation that I would have included in the body of this piece if it weren't already so long:

I've long since concluded that the gun controlers [sic] don't really expect measures like these to "work", in the sense of lowering crime, or aiding the police. The inconvenience and cost to gun owners is what they're aiming for. In the long run, if they can make gun ownership enough of a hassle, the number of gun owners in the next generation will decline, and perhaps we'll lose enough political clout that they can get the outright ban they really want.

But that's not a motive they can openly admit, and still hope to get the programs enacted.

To which I replied:

Brett Bellmore hit the nail on the head - the purpose is not to build a useful tool for crimefighting, the purpose is to make it more difficult for individuals to aquire [sic] and keep firearms. The effort is, and the gun control groups state this implicitly, to reduce the number of guns, because they ALL blame "the number of guns" in circulation for the level of gun violence we have here.

The British did a yeoman's job of making gun ownership an onerous privilege to exercise, then used the rules under which that privilege is exercised to remove whole classes of firearms...

From the law-abiding subjects. The criminals, however, still have access to pretty much anything they want.

Note this passage from the second Maryland report:

The Vision of the MD-IBIS Program was to have it fully performing in three to five years. This was to include the amassing of some 30,000 database images per year. This projection fell and was embarrassingly overstating. The actual acquisition of cartridge case numbers was about 36% of the estimation. The main reason for this drop-off appears to be from the reduction of handgun sales in Maryland after the passage of the law.

Now, did those sales actually disappear, or did they go black-market? Did this law really reduce the influx of handguns into Maryland by nearly two-thirds, or did it make a whole bunch of Marylanders (choose to become) instant criminals?

Stumble It!

Loading with the XL650 ... sort of (Part 1)

I had expected to allow the Continuing Story of Dillon and The Geek lay fallow for a while, hoping that I could eventually segue directly into the good news that the XL650 had been completely repaired and rejuvenated by a Factory rebuild.

That is, I had hoped so until friend Antipoda piped up this weekend asking “…how did your match go? Did you make a respectable showing? Did you have enough ammo? Have you solved your primeing problems? Have you considered selling your 650 at the next gunshow, and buying a 550b? “

[sigh]

Okay, I can’t afford to ignore the Compleat Contrarian.

Weekend before last, I stayed up until midnight trying to load enough ammo for the match. It took me roughly four hours to load 176 rounds of ammunition (some of which were later rejected when I examined them for flaws). I should have quit earlier, but sheer stubborn determination encouraged me to preserver when a more realistic man would have just borrowed ammunition from a friend.

The new parts for the XL650 did not solve the problem. If anything, it was worse. The primer disk wouldn't advance, because the primer arm didn't retreat to pick up the next hole in the primer disc and rotate it so the next primer was in place. I had to manually move the primer arm up and allow it to grab the next primer disk hole. I loaded about 100 rounds that way, and decided that if this wasn't enough ammunition to complete the match, I would just stop when I ran out of ammunition.

Then I spent another hour getting my gear together. It had been 9 months since I used the Open gun in competition, and I had to switch magazines, etc. I was sure it wouldn’t get done if I left it to the morning. In the end, I couldn’t find the extension which allowed me to use the same race holster for both a limited and an open gun (longer because of the compensator), so I decided to fake it.

Fortunately I had cleaned the gun thoroughly last time I used it, but I grabbed a bottle of solvent and ran a wet rag thru the barrel anyway. No spider nests, clean rag, good to go. Ran an oily rag thru the barrel, checked the sights (yep, battery still good) and put it all back in the gunrug, and that into the range bag with my 176 (+/-) loaded rounds.

I got to bed around 1 a.m. and then couldn’t get to sleep until around 4:30 a.m. which made me very groggy when the alarm went off at 7:30.

MATCH DAY

Quick shower to wake up, threw on jeans, shoes and the match shirt from the 1999 Limited Nationals at Las Vegas. My first National shirt, maybe it will bring me luck. I can use all I can get.

Stopped at Burger King for a breakfast sandwich, milk, stinky/greasy potatoes.

Then stopped at Dutch Bros for some hot coffee. I have to stay awake!


I ate the greasy/stinky potatoes on the drive up, drank a bit of milk, and ALL of the coffee!

When I go tot the match, it had already started. It's haying season in Oregon, and combines were moving from one field to the next over the country road on which I was traveling. Traffic gets backed up for miles behind combines which travel at 20 mph, tops. So it took me an hour and a half to make the drive which usually takes an hour.

It's worth mentioning that the range was entirely unfamiliar to me. CVSC (the Dundee range) had learned at the beginning of the summer that their neighbor, a grape vinyard, was expanding its growing acreage. The range would no longer be able to shoot to the West because that's where people would be working. It's a tall berm, but not definitively safe when people may be working the vines on any given day.

CVSC has spend between $40,000 and $50,000 according to Evil Bill to re-contour the land on the range, pointing the down-range configuration on the most uphill 4 bays to point South, rather than West.

Right now the bays are gravel-topped with a lot of very tall berms. No way of knowing now how well it work when the rainy season comes; I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the water runs downhill and fills Bay 4. But for now, it all works fine.

My first stage was in Bay 4, which is about 20 yards wide and deep. (Measures are a guess, so don't take this as gospel.) I found The Hobo Brasser there, and shot the first stage which includes a 6-target plate rack and four US poppers. I had trouble knocking the small targets down. Hobo Brasser made fun of me, saying "you're suppose the put the red dot on the steel and squeeze the trigger!" He thought I had forgotten how to shoot an open gun. Not true; I had forgotten that I should not drink coffee before a match, because that red dot was bouncing all over the target ... on and off, and my job was to figure when it was going to dance over the steel and time that with my trigger so I hit the steel. No, I didn't do really good on tight shots, but I was doing the C-More Shuffle for most of the day.

It was a well-designed, and balanced match, but by the time we got to the 3rd stage I was feeling the effects of the heat and the sun. I worked as RO for the first 5 shooters on that stage, but then I had to hand off the 'brick' (the timer) and let someone else RO. I was feeling faintly nauseous, and that's the first indicator of Heat Exhaustion. (Heat Stroke is something else, often hits without obvious warning signs, and is a killer.)

When we got to the last stage, we gained the benefit of being the smallest squad in the match, with 8 shooters. Everyone had to work, but we got though stages quickly. Having arrived late, I was the last in my squad to shoot the first stage. But I was the first shooter on the last stage, so I may have been the first shooter to complete the match.

I didn't impress anyone, but by virtue of my late start and early finish I probably spent less time actively competing of all the nearly 60 shooters.

The Hobo Brasser and I had planned to have Lingquica pizza at Abbey's Pizza in Newberg, so we were eager to get off the range. But HB was responsible for posting scores on the internet, so we waited for over an hour for the other squads to finish.

Finally I grew tired of waiting, so I hopped into my truck and went down to where the last two squads were trying to finish the match. One squad had 2 shooters to go, the others had 4 shooters. I grabbed their completed score sheets and ran them up to the make-shift stat's shack. so the StatsMistress could enter them into the computer.

Then HB and I bailed out. Evil Bill agreed to email him the final scores for publication. I didn't care, I was tired and dirty and hungry (although happy!) and I just wanted to get my lunch.

As far as I was concerned, the gun had run reliably and well, I had completed the match, and I actually had a full magazine left over. Darn, if I knew I would end up with that much ammunition left over, I could have got to bed an hour earlier last night!

(Completed below under "Loading with the XL650 ... sort of (Part 2)" below.)

Stumble It!

Loading with the XL650 ... sort of (Part 2)

After we left the range, HB and I made tracks directly to Abby's Pizza and a small pitcher of Heffeweizen.

Everyone else had either already left the match to go home, or they had only just finished the match and were waiting for the awards ceremony. HB and I have both attended hundreds of Awards Ceremonies, and while we usually stay to honor the winners, we had more important things on our mind: food and drink!

After the pizza and beer had been served, we talked about the match. HB related the story that on the last stage of the match, while I was shooting, one of the squad members commented that I had managed to shoot the whole match without a malfunction. (This was strikingly different from the last time I had shot the Open Gun, last October in Dundee, when a weak recoil spring had forced me to deal with a gun which would not return to battery ... one of the longest videos --- and most embarassing -- I have ever posted to YouTube.)

No sooner was the comment made, but the gun jammed. I pulled the trigger, gun went [click!] instead of [bang!] I think it was a high-primer, because I needed only perform the "Tap/Rack/Bang" drill and the gun performed flawlessly for the rest of the stage. Probably that would have happened even if nobody had mentioned that I was shooting a trouble-free match.

Probably.

But under any circumstances, it was clear that I had not the clear advantage of reliable reloaded ammunition.

By this time, it was clear that my Dillon XL650 was one sick puppy, and I was unable to use it to load ammo for competition. I mentioned my firm intent to sent the press back to Dillon during the coming week, because I was unable to fix the problems.

The Hobo Brasser chose this moment to offer to load 1,000 rounds for me on his own press, so I could send my 650 back for factory maintenance. He didn't want me to miss more matches than necessary at the dwindling end of the Summer Shooting Season. (In truth, I suspect he wanted me to shoot so that I would add an element of "Comic Relief" to the matches.)

Faced with this extremely generous offer, I hemmed and hawed around for about half a split-second and accepted his help.

The next weekend (now Last Dunday) I showed up on his doorstep with 300 rounds of new Winchester .38 Super brass, 1200 CCI Primers, and 4# of VV N350 powder. I also had a half-dozen rounds of loaded ammunition (so he could confirm the correct Over-All Length) and the range of power load for each cartridge, which was 8.0 - 8.6 grains. I also included an STI .38 Super magazine, which allowed him to make a final check on OAL: if it will fit within the magazine, it's not too long a load!

During the past week I have contacted Dillon via phone and got a Return Authorization Number, dismounted the 650 and sent it (including the shell-plate and the entire primer feed assembly, along with the 1050 handle) to Dillon via UPS.

At this moment I have about 26 rounds of (probably usable) .38 Super ammunition left over from my last match. I have also ordered another 1,000 rounds of Winchester Brass from Dillon, and when it arrives I will forward it to The Hobo Brasser. Along with the 1200 primers, that should be sufficient components for him to load 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

Not to put any pressure on but this year's Croc Dundee "You Got Bullets?" match has been replaced by a "Monster Match" at Albany Rifle and Pistol Club over the Labor Day weekend.

This match will require a minimum of 400 rounds, and I very much want to shoot it.

One of the problems with the Croc Match in the past has been the very tight schedule, which didn't allow shooters to pick up their brass after having shot a stage. This match announcement states that shooters will be allowed to brass at the end of a stage, as long as it doesn't delay the match. I REALLY don't want to dump 400+ rounds of once-fired brass on a range and lose it. Especially since the brass costs something like $200 for 1,000 rounds, including shipping.


So that's where I am right now. I checked the UPS Tracking Number on Friday last (August 6) and the 650 had got as far as Phoenix, Arizona. I assume it will be in Prescott sometime Monday. I don't know how long it will take them to fix it and return the press, but at lest due to the generosity of The Hobo Brasser, I won't have to sit out the rest of the 2010 competition season because I don't have ammunition.

Now all I have to do is relearn how to shoot the Open Gun.

Stumble It!

ORM-D

From the Shooting Wire for Monday, August 2, 2010 (Jim Shepherd's editorial).

[click here to subscribe, if you haven't already.]

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), an organization for independent over-the-road truckers, has filed suit against the state of California for a law scheduled to take effect in 2011. AB-962, if enacted, will place what the OOIDA calls restrictions on the delivery of handgun ammunition.

In fact, the law would criminalize the delivery and transfer of handgun ammunition in anything other than face-to-face transactions. It would also require the shipper to determine if the recipient of a package containing handgun ammunition is covered by any exceptions in the law before delivering handgun ammunition in California.

The National Rifle Association, California educational and lobbying group Calguns, the Folsom Shooting Club and two Claifornia-based truckers and OOIDA members, Erik Royce and Brandon Elias agree, and have joined OOIDA in their lawsuit.

The suit alleges the law is unnecessary, being preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization act of 1994. The FAAA, the suit says, regulates the "routes, rates and services utilized for shipping and delivery or sale of ammunition to a person in California" because the provision "purports to regulate from whom and to whom carriers may make a delivery of ammunition in California."

Under the proposed California legislation, handgun ammunition would be clearly labeled . OOIDA says that law places unreasonable demands on carriers and drivers. Under the law, delivery drivers would be required to obtain a signature from the packages' addressee, determine the caliber of the handgun ammunition, and in some cases, even perform identification verifications.

That's not all. The law states that "transfer of ownership of ammunition may only occur in face-to-face transactions with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee."

The independent drivers organization raises the argument that many drivers don't know enough about ammunition to know what's handgun ammo- or not. And the requirement for a face-to-face transaction means the drivers - normally on a schedule- must coordinate delivery times rather than maintaining their work schedules.

And, the organization alleges, the labeling requirement places additional burdens on all involved parties. Ammunition, currently shipped under the federal label ORM-D (Other Related Materials-Domestic) isn't the only using that designation. Perfumes, aerosol cans, beer and other commodities also carry the ORM-D label-meaning drivers don't always know what's in the boxes they're hauling.

In other words, they might be breaking the law without even knowing.

The organization says it's seeking a permanent injunction from the law being enforced on "motor carriers and air/ground intermodal carriers and otherwise legal recipients of ammunition."

The "otherwise legal recipients" would cover virtually anyone reading this story.

"This isn't about firearms or ammunition," says Jim Johnston, OOIDA president, "We cannot allow California to subject our members to criminal liability where the state has no right to meddle."

Johnston is referencing a 2008 Supreme Court decision in which the court struck down a similar law in Maine regarding the delivery of cigarettes to Maine. In the Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport case, the Supreme Court ruled- unanimously- that states cannot interfere with a carrier's rates, routes or services.

We'll keep you posted.

Editor's Note: You can read the complaint from the OOIDA by clicking here

I can never equal, let alone improve upon, Jim Shepherd's editorials. However, I can offer the observation that this is just one more step taken by The Peoples' State of Kalifornia in their ongoing attempts to disarm the law-abiding citizens of their state. And I wonder, parenthetically, why the heck they are so afraid of their citizens. Could it be because so many of their citizens aren't .... citizens? And whose fault is that, eh, Mayor Gavin Newsom?

"Gun Control isn't about Guns; it's about Control"

Stumble It!

Oregon CHL Privacy Rights ... or Wrongs?

I recently received a forwarded email from friend Marc, which seems to have originated from "The Jacobe Group" (an Oregon "Firearms Training" organization).

While I know little about the "group" (I have met Jim Jacobe) and I have not researched the bill referenced, I'll present the email "as received". I'll have a couple of comments at the end.

Note that all links and references were embedded in the original text; nothing has been added. Nothing has been removed or deleted, either, except the Jacobe Group banner which was included at the end of the original email. The intend here is NOT to recommend or denigrate individuals or organizations.

{Politicians fit in neither category.}


Before we start, here's the summary for HB2727:

SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Prohibits public body from releasing information that can be used to identify holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license. Authorizes disclosure for criminal justice purposes and pursuant to court order.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to records of concealed handgun licenses.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. A public body as defined in ORS 192.410 may not disclose records or information that can be associated with the identity of a current holder of, or an applicant for, a concealed handgun license unless:
(1) The disclosure is necessary for criminal justice purposes; or
(2) A court enters an order in a pending civil or criminal case directing the public body to disclose the records or information.

(Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Ten lines, no waiting.)

Here is the April 24 version, which I take to be the 'amended' version. Not 10 lines, but 11 pages ... includes the entire text of a CHL application, and 'exceptions', starting out with the proviso that it amends ORS 192.502 . In fact, it contains the entire text of the existing law, as ammended by this bill (look for the 'bold face' text). Essentially, it 'exempts from public disclosure' a plethora of public records, specifying exactly what information is and is not protected. Not a list of names, but details. Thankfully, at least Social Security Numbers are protected from exposure -- except in certain circumstances. The part which applies to CHL starts at the bottom of page 6.)

This appears to be the change in law, in the amendment proposed by Steiger:

(35) Records or information that identify a person as a holder of, or an applicant for, a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292. This exemption does not apply if the party seeking disclosure:
(a) Requests records or information pursuant to a subpoena or court order; or
(b) Shows by clear and convincing evidence that the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance. In making this determination, the custodian shall consider any information provided by an affected holder of, or applicant for, a concealed handgun license.

Comments about the changed text appended at the bottom of this page. But you'll have to search the contents of ORS 192.410 for yourself. The main difference seems to the wording in the second clause, which changes from "a court order" in "a pending criminal or civil case" (original text) versus "Public Interest".

But what is a legitimate "Public Interest"? Aye, there's the rub. And what does it mean that "the custodian shall consider any information provided"?


Here is the text of the email:

OFFPAC ALERT 07.29.10

CHL INFO TO BE MADE PUBLIC, AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Please help us retire Judy Steigler and elect Jason Conger.

As you may have heard, the Jackson County Sheriff has lost his battle to protect the private information of concealed handgun licensees.

The Medford Mail Tribune has demanded, and now will receive, the names, addresses, phone numbers and occupations of license holders in Jackson County. They may also demand this same information for the entire state, as can anyone, "newspaper," "reporter" or thief. (Many applicants included their Social Security numbers. It is not at all clear if these will be avalable as well.)

This info was demanded so the Tribune could "out" as many teachers as possible after the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation funded a lawsuit to protect the rights of a Medford teacher.

Most sheriffs have taken steps to safeguard this information from future snooping, but those efforts have not yet faced legal scrutiny. So for now, if you are a license holder, your privacy is very much in jeopardy.

There is no reason this information should be available to the public. These are not records of "government activity" as has been falsely claimed by the "Tribune" and the ACLU. These are records of private information, extorted by the state in order for Oregonians to exercise what should be a right. There is no more a need for this information to be in the public domain than should be your tax records.

In 2009, House Rep's Kim Thatcher and Jeff Barker introduced HB 2727 to make this data private. The bill had broad bipartisan support and seemed to be a sure thing, until House Rep Judy Steigler (D Bend), stepped in to torpedo it. Later Steigler blamed voters who strongly supported the bill for its failure! Steigler was also responsible for the death of a bill in 2009 that would have had Oregon recognize other states' concealed handgun licenses, a bill that was strongly supported by the Oregon Sheriffs Association.

In 2011, CHL privacy legislation will almost surely be reintroduced. But we need to do all we can to make sure Steigler is not around to kill this important bill. That's why OFFPAC is asking that you do all you can to help return Steigler to private practice and replace her with someone who respects gun rights.

Frankly, Steigler has done more to damage progress on gun rights in Oregon than even Ginny Burdick, whose efforts to attack gun owners have been almost exclusively failures except when she had millions in out of state money and the help of John McCain. (2000's Measure 5)

If you live in Steigler's district, obviously, you can vote against her, but no matter where you live, you can help her opponent Jason Conger.

Remember, the laws are made by legislators whether they are in your district or not. We believe substantial progress would have been made in 2009 except for the actions of Steigler and we hope you will help us replace her.

Conger has answered our survey 100%. OFFPAC is asking that you consider the most generous donation you can make to help send Judy home and elect Jason Conger. You can contribute directly to Conger's campaign here.

Comments on the content:

Personally, I don't see a lot wrong with the amended version. Again, I haven't checked the referenced ORS 192.410 and in law, context is important. Still, the differences may be more significant than they appear on the surface. Unfortunately, I can't parse the difference because I am not a lawyer. (My folks raised me better.)

When I followed the links provided in the original email, I noticed that most of them referenced the "OFF" or Oregon Firearms Federation. I know little about them; what I do know is 2nd hand, and not worth relating to you here.

But I did pay special attention to one post on that website, that which was referenced in the phrase "... Steigler blamed voters ..."

(I don't know much about Judy Steigler, either, except what I find on her legislator page.)

While I have to admit that Steigler's comments, if accurately quoted (and I have no reason to think that they were not), seemed dismissive of the person to whom she is replying -- and I don't have the text of that communication, either -- the tone of the purported email doesn't sound likely to have been composed by a staff which is concerned with the possible re-election chances for their boss.

On the other hand, I have no idea whether Rep. Steigler has a 'staff', or if they are sufficiently competent to protect their boss, or whether Steigler is the actual author of the purported email.

If she did, in fact, write the email it doesn't speak well for her judgment. But as I said, I don't know and I have not yet found a disclaimer on the Internet or on Rep. Steigler's website.

Steigler mentioned that the bill (to protect the privacy of Oregon CHL holders by legally refusing to list their identities to anyone, either a private person or a 'public' organization, such as a newspaper) "... didn't have a chance of passing even one chamber of the Legislature ... ". Truth or fiction? I have no way of knowing. I am not a politician (my folks raised me better) and I haven't been following the bill (HB2727).

The crux of the story seems to be this: Steigler seemed to think that voters who adamantly refused to allow public release of the information available from the office of Sheriff of the individual counties, relating to the people in those counties who have applied for and received a CHL (Concealed Handgun License ... or permit to carry a concealed handgun) ... were not only being unrealistic, but also obstreperous at a minimum -- and probably "part of the problem" rather than offering a solution which was acceptable to CHL holders.

In expressing her opinion, Steigler unfortunately used such phrases as " ... your caustic remarks ...", "... rather than solving a problem, you sacrifice the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of CHL holders to move a political agenda ...", " ... it is the efforts of citizens themselves which often keep anything from happening ..." and (perhaps most insulting) "... it is folks such as yourself that have doomed this bill ...".

In other words, citizens who have strong opinions should keep those opinions to themselves rather than to make their feelings known to their legislative representative. Apparently, knowing that a voter cares enough about the output of farm animals and legislators to actually speak their objection ... is objectionable to their representative. Or their farm animal, I guess, except that a farm animal has market value.

Would that we could say the same for our legislators.

On the other hand, we don't vote for farm animals, we buy them. Our legislators ... hey, maybe they aren't that different after all!

I hadn't planned for this to be a diatribe ending the same way the email did, but if we can't buy our legislators (the same way Unions and Newspapers can), maybe we should seriously consider voting the rascals out?

Politicians and Diapers have this in common:
They should be changed frequently, and for much the same reason.

Just saying ....

Ultimately, the question boils down to 2 points:

1. What are the real differences between the second clauses of the two versions; and
2. What is it with this State Representative of The People, who finds it so fulfilling to deliberately insult her constituents?
   

Stumble It!