USPSA Presidential Elections Run-off

Here are two (not so) very surprising results from the 2011 USPSA Presidential election;

1. not very many USPSA members submitted their ballots, or submitted them before the deadline; and ..
2. therefore, so few ballots were received that it was impossible to determine a 'winner', within the definition of the UPSA constitution.

The reason why that's not very surprising is that most people in USPSA don't much care who occupies the position of President; they just want to go shoot, and not be bothered with organizational details.

Isn't it odd that so many of us volunteer to work as Range Officers, and instructors, but won't vote on a Presidential election?

Well, no. No really

According to the accounting company hired to monitor the results (Jacob Jarvis) ....
about 5,500 valid votes were received, out of the approximately 18,000 current members eligible to vote. Which means that less than one out of three of us cared enough to register an opinion.

Again, this isn't all that surprising. Most of us just want to go shoot club matches. Some of us attend Sectional matches, fewer attend Area (Level III) matches, and typically about 500 individuals compete in National Matches (that is, 500/18,000 or about 0.3%; of the 2 or more National Matches, a significant number attended more than one match --- every year). And most of those National Match attendees are those who think they have a reasonable chance to win.

Note: I've attended a few National Matches, but never expected to win. I have never been disappointed; I never won.

This supports my original thesis; most of us just want to shoot. It's not that we are victims of ennui. As long as a national organization exists in any form, and club matches are still held regularly within a reasonable driving distance, and a working classification system is maintained regularly, we don't much care who is driving the bus.

Unfortunately, this is not characteristic of a healthy, thriving, viable organization. It does not provide a sense of confidence that this sporting organization can continue for the foreseeable future.

Let's look a the the run-off for President: Michael Voigt (the incumbent) garnered 2,639 votes, for 48% of the valid received ballots. Phil Strader (the challenger) received 1,890 votes for 34.4% of the valid received ballots. The three 'other' listed challengers received less than half of the votes, all together, that Phil Strader received. Total votes received: 30.2% of the ballots sent out.

Why Should We Care?
Actually, if all you want to do is to shoot club matches once a month, should you care who is the President of USPSA?

No, of course you shouldn't. After USPSA collapses, you can still get together with your friends every now and then and go shoot IPSC-like matches. It just requires a lot more organizational effort on the few people who are still willing to put on a match.

Of course, if USPSA falls, then there is no classification system. Then you won't be able to provide a viable "relative scoring" of one competitor to all others.

Is this likely to happen? No, probably not. At least, not for a while. If you are wondering why you really NEED a USPSA (or an IPSC) organization, it's ultimately all for the classification system. Most of us couldn't care less who is the President of the USPSA; after all, the incumbent is always intrinsically interested in the continuation of the organization, because this is where they earn their living.

Professional Shooters
Let's look at the two top contenders for the office: Michael Voigt and Phil Strader. These two gentlemen can reasonably be described as Professional Shooters. They make their living from competition and from training. Until Michael Voigt was elected in way-back-when (1998?), all of the USPSA presidents were more 'administrators' than 'professional shooters'.

They may have competed in International matches, but it wasn't because their primary qualification was name-recognition, because they were "professional shooters". They may have attended, and competed in, International matches; but it wasn't because they expected to win. They just wanted to shoot. Like you, and me.

Mission Statements of the President(s) of USPSA
And we have reaped the benefits of the vision of the current USPSA President, Michael Voigt. After all, he headed the effort for USPSA to semi-divorce itself from IPSC, as far as the American competition rules are allowed to differ from the International competition rules.

Or did he? Wasn't it the members of the Board of Directors who actually spear-headed the effort for USPSA to continue with a rule book which actually reflected the unique second-amendment friendly environment of the United States?

Many of the regions of IPSC could not legally compete because of the legal requirements of their national governments. I don't know how many IPSC Regions cannot use the "Metric Target", for example (because it is contrary to National Law to shoot at 'human-form' targets), but it is a significant number.

In fact, during the compilation of the USPSA rules of competition, Michael Voigt found himself voting against some motions of the USPSA Board of Directors, because Voigt was the only member who regularly competed in Level IV "International" competition.

But most of us in USPSA ... surely over 95% of us .... haven't ever competed internationally. We don't much care what IPSC thinks is an appropriate limitation on target shape or presentation. We just want to shoot at club matches, and the limitations that IPSC had enacted were anathema to many of us. The USPSA Board of Directors, in fact, led the way in deciding that, for example, a rule which disallowed targets to be displayed when rotated more than 90 degrees from vertical made no sense to us.

And we don't really like the IPSC Division definitions of Standard and Modified. IPSC doesn't recognize Limited, Limited-10, Single-Stack, etc. divisions.

European and other Regions are often restricted in the definition of acceptable competitive rules, because they have "local" (National) laws which regulate what they can and cannot do. For example, some nations (eg: England and Tokyo) will not allow their citizens to own pistols; they have to shoot with 'airsoft' guns, at best, and can only shoot 'real' guns by travelling outside their own country of origin. Consequently, they can't write a rule book which allows the same freedoms as we enjoy in America; they are obliged to bow to the dictates of their political masters.

USPSA Autonomy
And so, there is a decided NEED for USPSA to maintain its autonomy outside of the global anti-gun, anti-freedom agenda with which so many of our international friends must contend ... and we can ignore. It's not the American Way. It's the United Nations "Let's Make All Civilian Firearms Ownership Illegal" way.

I don't want some foreign government to decide what firearms I can and cannot own, nor how I can use them, nor what target shape (isn't that bizarre?) I can shoot them at. And neither do you.

What we need is a USPSA President who can stand up for 'inalienable rights' against intrusive governmental interference. That's asking a lot of the leader of a relatively minor sporting organization, although that is exactly what we would prefer ... if it was only possible.

We can't free our international friends from these intrusive laws, but we can stand up for our own rights and serve as a shining example of a nation where the government can't apply arbitrary restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights. Can other nations learn from us? Probably not; they have been so brainwashed by socialist agendas, they are willing to abrogate the competitive rules of their own sports, just to allow themselves their primary consideration ....

... they just want to go shooting on the weekends. Just like you, and me. We don't HAVE to go shooting every weekend, to remain active. It's enough to know that we can, and when we go to a match we know that there's not some interfering "Suit" telling us we're bad just because we want to poke holes in cardboard and make that steel target go

Whaddy gonna do?
So sometime in the next month, a majority of us 18, 197 eligible voting members need to send in our ballot and take a stand. The right to vote is essential to American citizenship, even if it's just to choose the leader of our sporting organization for the next few years.

What am I going to do? I'm going to vote for Phil Strader, instead of Michael Voight. Nothing against Mr. Voigt; he's an honorable man, and he's done his best during the past several years to keep USPSA on track and consistent with the priorities we hold dear.

My personal opinion is that it's time to bring a new man onto the scene, and see what he can do with the office. My hope is that he will be a leader. The BOD has been blessed with leaders during the past several years, but many of them have 'retired', and I miss their leadership qualities (even though I have offended a few of them with my criticisms on specific occasions.)

I don't personally know most of the current BOD members, so I'm hoping for a strong leader who will take our best interests to heart. My feeling is that (a) Mr. Voigt has done what he can in the past, and we need a new leader ... perhaps he has a new vision, and I'd like to see what he can do with the office; and (b) although this is not intended as a criticism of Mr. Strader, who is a good man and a great competitor AND a good firearms/competition instructor, I would very much have been able to elect someone who does not make (or augment) his living from his shooting career.

But if we must have a "Professional Shooter" as the next USPSA President, I would rather let the 'new blood' take his best shot at it.

I'm hoping for an A-zone double tap.

You can vote for whom ever you choose; but --- choose someone. Don't let my vote constitute too much of the valid votes, if you don't agree with me. Or even if you do. we're looking for at least a 50% return on the votes, this time.

Run, shoot, or get out of the way!

Jerry the (My "Honor Scholar" can kick your "Honor Scholar's" ass!) Geek

Stumble It!

Gunwalker

What Holder and administration apologists expect us to believe about Gunwalker - National gun rights | Examiner.com:

This from David Codrea, "Gun Rights Examiner", October 17, 2011:

If we are to believe Attorney General Eric Holder, he knew nothing about “Project Gunwalker” while it was being implemented, and did not first hear of it until a few weeks before Darrell Issa asked him about it in a May House Committee on Oversight and Government reform hearing.

If we are to believe him, any briefings he received did not discuss gunwalking. Plus he never read reports from senior staff.

If we are to believe administration apologists, not only is this so, but gunwalking was confined to the Phoenix office and the operations were conducted from the bottom, while senior ATF and DOJ managers were blissfully kept in the dark.

And Issa is on “a witch hunt.” So there.

---

If I understand this correctly, this is in reference to the BATF program which we have previously known as "Operation Fast And Furious" ... the federal policy which (a) required Arizona firearms dealers to sell guns to people who were obviously "straw purchasers"; and (b) attempted (but failed) to track the transfers of those guns to drug cartels in Mexico.

... and need we add (c) this program not only failed miserably in all of its vaguely defined goals, but ultimately led to the deaths of U.S. Border Patrol Agents, who were murdered by these same uncontrolled guns?

If you are not already outraged by the ill-defined and poorly executed policy, perhaps you will join me in being outraged by the all-too-obvious cover-up which the U.S. Justice Department has chosen as the 'best use' of the funding which we so generously provide them by our tax dollars.

I am far too furious about this situation to comment with any degree of civility, but somehow I am reminded of the December 7,l 1941, cover-up of the U.S. Navy's failure to perceive the threat of a Japanese Sneak Attack ... which (you may recall) led to the American entry into World War II.

The lack of leadership is similar, and I predict that the lack of accountability will also be similar. A couple of high-level administrators will be dismissed from government service, but the house-clearing will not reach the appropriate levels of accountability: in WWII, the Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox; and today, to the 82nd Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder.

Heads should roll on this. But although Holder should suffer the same punishment as the innocents in the U.S. Border Patrol, he will not.

AND FOR THIS ONE ...accountability should go all the way to the President.

Stumble It!

Soft Target

Well, he has done it again.

That intrepid Sniper-Novel-Writer Stephen Hunter has written another "Bob the Nailer" book, except it apparently stars the new hero, Ray Cruz.

Having read all of Robert B. Parker's "Spenser" books, I often wondered how he could keep a Korean War Veteran believable 40 years after the prime of his protagonist. Parker solved it by adding a couple of new primary characters ... including Jesse Stone (all of which video rights, incidentally, were quickly purchased by the TV star, Tom Selleck).

Hunter hasn't yet found a purchaser for his Bob the Nailer movie rights (with the possible, but failed, exception of his 2007 movie "Shooter", staring Mark Wahlberg).

Still, Hunter has committed to at least 3 new books since the completion of his last BTN trilogy, and the second seems to be "Soft Target":

The new book is due to be released December 6, 2011, and of course I've already pre-purchased it from Amazon.dom. I get a good price by pre-purchasing books by my favorite authors (I also, at the same time, pre-purchased Vince Flynn's newest book, due out in February of 2012).)

Hunter hasn't written a 'bad" book in the current century. I didn't like a few of his earlier efforts, although I changed my mind about one of his early books upon rereading it 20 years after publication. But since he hit upon the "Sniper" theme, he has done a fairly consistent job of writing; I only disliked one of his "Bob The Nairler" books, and that one featured his (Bob's) father's adventures in Cuba.

Many (most?) of Hunter's Sniper books are .. pretty far out there. But it's like watching movie cartoons; if you are not willing to suspend disbelief, you have no business watching the cartoons, or reading the books, because you are doomed to dissatisfaction. If Goofy can fly when he winds up to pitch a baseball, then Bob the Nailer can (for example) ride a motorcycle like nobody's business and hit what he aims at no matter how near or far the target is.

When Bob misses a crucial shot, the frnachise will fail. Hence (to complete the circle) the introduction of Ray Cruz.

Here's the pre-review from Down Range TV.

Soft Target a new thriller by Stephen Hunter coming in December | Outdoor Channel: Posted October 14, 2011

From Down Range TV

Stephen Hunter, the “father” of Bob Lee Swagger and a regular on our shows Shooting Gallery and Gun Stories, is back with another book. In Dead Zero, we were introduced to Marine Sergeant Ray Cruz. The now retired Marine returns in Soft Target which will be released in early December.

The following is the book description posted on the publisher’s web site:

Black Friday America’s largest shopping mall Suburban Minneapolis 3:00 P.M.

Ten thousand people jam the aisles, the corridors, the elevators, and the escalators of America, the Mall—a giant Rubik’s Cube of a structure with its own amusement park located in the spacious center atrium. Of those people, nine thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight have come to shop. The other twelve have come to kill.

Stephen Hunter’s hyper-drive, eighth-gear new thriller, Soft Target, chronicles the day when the unthinkable happens: twelve gunmen open fire in the mall corridors, driving the pack before them. Those on the upper floors take cover or get out any way they can; but within a few minutes the gunmen have herded more than a thousand hostages into the amusement park.

Go ahead and buy it. Sure, you may be disappointed; but what if you aren't?

Stumble It!

The 9/11 Revolver - Katie Pavlich

The 9/11 Revolver - Katie Pavlich

Stumble It!

B-b-b-Bye ATF? Part 2: Obama Disclaims

Document Dump: White House in Heavy Communication About Operation Fast and Furious

(Click on the title above to view the original Townhall commentary)

"What did he know, and when did he know it?"

This question has often been asked of Republican administrations, and now it is being asked of this specific Democratic administration.

President Obama has denied any knowledge of "Operation Fast and Furious":

"First of all, I did not authorize it [Operation Fast and Furious]. Eric Holder, the attorney General did not authorize it."

"This is a pretty big government, the United States Government, I've got a lot of moving parts."

Barack Obama June 2011:

"As you know my Attorney General has made clear he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into Mexico."

"The investigation is still pending and I'm not going to comment on a pending investigation"

"It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation if it is not completed."

But Townhall correspondent Katie Pavlich, in an October 2, 2011 article, suggests that Our President, Commander in Chief and Leader of the Free World might perhaps be less than transparent on this specific issue:

New documents from the White House show extensive communications between for Special Agent in Charge William Newell, who has since been promoted to a cushy position within the Obama Justice Department in Washington D.C., and White House national security team staff about Operation Fast and Furious. In the video above, Obama claims it is his administration's policy to "catch gunrunners and put them into jail," when in fact ATF and DOJ policy under Obama has been exactly the opposite. ATF agents were told by senior officials to allow gunrunners to put high powered weapons into the hands of ruthless cartels, not to arrest them and to allow them to go back into Mexico.

From CBS News:

The documents show extensive communications between then-ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office Bill Newell - who led Fast and Furious - and then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly. Emails indicate the two also spoke on the phone. Such detailed, direct communications between a local ATF manager in Phoenix and a White House national security staffer has raised interest among Congressional investigators looking into Fast and Furious. Newell has said he and O'Reilly are long time friends.

William Newell admitted during testimony on Capitol Hill in July that the White House had in fact been in contact with him about Operation Fast and Furious. Newell even referred to Kevin O'Reilly as, "a good friend." Previous to Newell's admission, the White House denied any knowledge or authorization of Operation Fast and Furious. Once Newell said he was in contact with O'Reilly, the White House then claimed O'Reilly and two other White House national security staffers knew about the program but didn't know "details."

Now, we know that White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly was heavily briefed about the details of the operation through emails and phone calls.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you believe that President Obama has always and ever been entirely candid ... or truthful ... with the American Public.

Perhaps it may be helpful to put the question this way:

Do you recall ANY American President, from FDR (who was the President when I was born) on, who has always been entirely candid ... or truthful ... with the American Public?

hmmmm ...

Nope.

Geez, they're all politicians! All they want is to get re-elected, and eventually to be remembered reverently so they can set up their Presidential Libraries and gets lots of speaking engagements which will pay them big bucks.

Like Bill Clinton.

Remember him? Mister "I did not have sexual relations with That Woman .... Monica Lewinski"?

Yeah. I thought so.

___________________________________________

IN THE MEANTIME ...

... there are corresponding "fallout" issues which have may have been generally overlooked by Media and Federal Administration authorities:

According to testimony, it has become common practice for retaliation to occur against ATF Agents who spoke out against their supervisor's corruption, even when operations had no logical backing.

[ATF Special Agent Peter] Forcelli [in his testimony] also added that while the ATF was ordering gun dealers to sell to straw buyers under surveillance, gun dealers were taking the heat for it, and being held responsible for violence in Mexico. He stressed gun dealers were not the problem. In fact gun dealers were helpful in pursuing cases against cartel members, making it blatantly clear law abiding gun owners are not at fault, but the government is.

[emphasis added]

It's never the government, it's never the leaders ... it's always The Little Guy who takes the heat.

It's a Wonderful World, isn't it, where the expression "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" is automatically interpreted to be an exercise in irony.

Stumble It!

B-b-b-Bye ATF?

I received an email from "Llago" (not necessarily a frequent reader of this blog) which provided the (undated) text of a Townhall.com correspondent Katie Pavlich column, suggesting that the Department of Justice agency "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" *(BATF, frequently referenced here as "ATF")* might possibly be deactivated:

Bombshell: DOJ Considering Elimination of ATF

• 
• Katie Pavlich
  Columnist, Townhall.com

Multiple sources, including sources from ATF, DOJ and Congressional offices have said there is a white paper circulating within the Department of Justice, outlining the essential elimination of ATF. According to sources, the paper outlines the firing of at least 450 ATF agents in an effort to conduct damage control as Operation Fast and Furious gets uglier and as election day 2012 gets closer. ATF agents wouldn’t be reassigned to other positions, just simply let go. Current duties of ATF, including the enforcement of explosives and gun laws, would be transferred to other agencies, possibly the FBI and the DEA. According to a congressional source, there have been rumblings about the elimination of ATF for quite sometime, but the move would require major political capital to actually happen.

“It’s a serious white paper being circulated, how far they’d get with it I don’t know,” a confidential source said.

After a town hall meeting about Operation Fast and Furious in Tucson, Ariz. On Monday, ATF Whistleblower Vince Cefalu, who has been key in exposing details about Operation Fast and Furious, confirmed the elimination of ATF has been circulating as a serious idea for sometime now and that a white paper outlining the plan does exist.

Sounds great right? Eliminating ATF? But there is more to this story. Remember, low level ATF field agents, like ATF whistleblower John Dodson, were uncomfortable conducting Operation Fast and Furious from the beginning, but were told by high level officials within ATF that if they had a problem with the operation, they could find a job elsewhere.

“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated,” ATF Whistleblower John Dodson said in testimony on Capitol Hill on June 15, 2011

In fact, not only were the ATF agents forced to carry out the operation, they were told to go against what they had been taught in training.

“This operation, which in my opinion endangered the American public, was orchestrated in conjunction with Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley. [Emory Hurley is the same Assistant U.S. Attorney who previously prevented agents from using some of the common and accepted law enforcement techniques that are employed elsewhere in the United States to investigate and prosecute gun crimes.] I have read documents that indicate that his boss, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, also agreed with the direction of the case,” Special Agent Peter Forcelli said in testimony on Capitol hill on June 15, 2011.

(Look for the name "Dennis L. Burke" near the end of this essay .... you may not be entirely displeased by the context.)

In the interest of "full disclosure", I checked the TOWNHALL website, and researched their archives for the correspondent, with no luck. I looked back for three weeks and didn't find the article cited. It's certainly possible that if I had taken my research farther back, I would have found it. [see update at the bottom of this article]

I did, however, find several current and/or recent (as of October 1, 2011) ATF-related articles by Pavlich, which suggests that she is pursuing the ATF-related theme assiduously.

Good on you, Cobber.

[In passing, I note that as of this date (October 1, 2011) the ATF website mentions neither the transition of the ATF director, nor the controversy of the "Fast and Furious" program. However, on August 17, 2o11 it does refute the "... Inacurate news report regarding 'Fast and Furious' personnel' ". The disgrace of the temporary, transitional and FIRED! acting temporary Director has yet to be addressed. Typical.]

You may not find the above-quoted material convincing; since I was unable to find the original article, and the submitted material did not include a publication date, I have no way of convincing either you or myself that it is legitimate. However, I am personally acquainted with "Llago". My own private conclusion is that the correspondent did write the article, and my inability to find it reflects upon my own lapses, rather than the correspondent or the website or the person who sent me the full text (the full text is available to you upon request, as email).

So, is the ATF dead in the water? I don't know.

I do know that, since Prohibition, ATF has been responsible for a LOT of "governmental intervention" in the realm of private activity. Were they more of a help than a hindrance during prohibition, when they prevented a lot of "bathtub gin" from being sold to private citizens? Perhaps ... but if the federal government (in it's wisdom) had not prohibited the legal production of SAFE gin, it might never have been a problem.

In the area of firearms manufacture and sale, what positive influence have they been?

In the 1992 "Ruby Ridge" fiasco, ATF agents entrapped Randy Weaver into cutting the barrel of a shotgun shorter than the ATF found acceptable, and then while trying to arrest Weaver an FBI
"Hostage Rescue Team" sniper (was there ever a more ironic acronym?) shot and killed Weaver's wife "accidentally". Was this an "Accidental Discharge"? No such thing; it's a "Negligent Discharge", to give it it's proper nomenclature.

And in the 1993 "Branch Dividian" massacre, ATF was instrumental in the assault on the Waco compound of David Koresh resulting in the death of over eighty American citizens ... including many children who can never be describe other than as "innocents". As the "Serendipity" website describes the situation:

After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh's dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered.

(emphasis added by the editor)

Now we see "Operation Fast and Furious", where the ATF deliberately allowed the (questionable) sale, transfer and transportation of American firearms to "straw purchasers" ... which would ordinarily be rejected by the governmentally. audited retailer ... with the final disposition of those firearms to violent Mexican drug traffickers. The ATF has jumped through every hoop it could find to defend it's OFFICIAL "hands off" policy, based upon the concept that allowing such purchases would allow them (the ATF) to track the movement of arms to its ultimate receiver.

The tracking effort usually failed (not least because the "tracking devices" sometimes embedded in the illegal firearms were powered by "Radio Shack" batteries, which had a very limited life ... someone didn't think that through) and the basic fallacy of the policy became tragically (an embarrassingly ... for the ATF) obvious when a U.S. Border Patrollman was killed by one of those same "Fast and Furious" guns. The consequence: the egrigious and controversial "temporary" ATF chief, Kenneth E. Melson ... and his accomplice (the U.S. Attorney in Phoenix, AZ --Dennis L. Burke) were "replaced".

You know the old joke: "What do you call 600 attorneys drowning at the bottom of the ocean? 'A Good Start' "?

Well, this was another "Good Start".

It's not enough, but it's A Good Start.

Neither Burke nor Melson will lose their lives in as a consequence of their horrendous lack of judgement.

Unfortunately, we can't say as much for the innocent-but-dedicated (and now deceased) Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.


Surely, Brian Terry wasn't the only victim of this ill-conceived and poorly-executed, failed Federal policy. But he is the sacrificial lamb who will inevitably be overlooked by history.

The ATF may be eliminated? Can you say "Goodbye and Good Riddance?" children.

I knew you could.
________________________________________________
UPDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2011

This morning I found the original article link on the front page of TOWNHALL. You may read the entire article here. I could not find a date on the original article, but the first of the (over 300) comments was dated September 30, 2011.

Stumble It!