Flying With Guns

Transporting Firearms and Ammunition | Transportation Security Administration:

You may transport unloaded firearms in a locked hard-sided container as checked baggage only. Declare the firearm and/or ammunition to the airline when checking your bag at the ticket counter

I've written about this before, but it has been a long time.  Rules may have changed by now, so the above link is effective as of this date.

If you are travelling by air, there are some strict regulations which you must follow considering how your firearms and ammunition must be stowed.

Firearms must be in locked, hard-side cases.  The plastic case your gun came in does not meet standards.

Ammunition must be also in a locked, hardside case.   Only shotgun ammunition may be stored in the same case as the gun.  (As if that's going to be big enough!)

Ammunition must be in a solid container, not cardboard.

Note: if you're going to a match or on a hunt, it might be easier to ship the ammunition ahead to your destination as a separate effort.  It's probably a lot cheaper, too, considering the cost of shipping it as 'luggage' considering the weight allowances.

MISTAKES:
I once flew to New York from Oregon to attend a match.  When I checked the baggage, I discovered that the nice lady at the check-in counter was not aware of the regulations.  I tried to demonstrate that my pistols (in checked baggage) were unloaded, and it freaked her out.   She had no idea how to determine that the guns were unloaded, and when I took the locked hard-case out of the luggage and opened it up, she was frightened.  She had never actually touched a gun before, so I racked the slide on each pistol to show that the gun was unloaded.

Try it. You'll like it

Hong Kong 3Gun Match - The Firearm Blog:

 3Gun Nation has started official matches for Airsoft. 

Say what you will about Airsoft, but have a look at this video. Racing is racing and this looks like a fun and challenging sport. It has the spirit of 3gun just without the long distance targets we typically see here in the US.

It's an equivalent 'indoor' sport which includes most of the elements of the 'full poweer' version, and the excellence of the competition obviates what I WOULD have said about the sport, before I saw the video.

In a world where so many nations are determined to dismiss the natural right to compete with firearms, this is the best that many people can do.

And it's a lot less expensive than using guns with gunpowder-powered ammunition ... but still just as exciting, still focuses on speed and accuracy.

Perhaps the DVC (Speed/Power/Accuracy) equation of IPSC isn't as important when you delete the "power" part of the equation.

Sometimes "the best you can do under the circumstances" doesn't really take away from the excitement of shooting.

A good shooter is a good shooter, no matter what tools are used in competition.

MAINE: Grandmothers Against Gun Violence

Grandmothers Against Gun Violence to meet | March 24, 2016 | www.timesrecord.com | The Times Record:

BRUNSWICK — The new Maine Chapter of Grandmothers Against Gun Violence will hold their first meeting April, 3, 1 p.m. at the Curtis Memorial Library, 23 Pleasant St. The meeting is open to anyone interested in helping to stem the surge of gun violence. 

Anyone in the Maine area is encouraged to attend and report back to this website, so that we will all know how it turns out.

My best guess (channeling my "Carnac The Magnificent" moment) is that Grandma will bake chocolate chip cookies with macadamia nuts, and I would attend if I was within 2000 miles of the event.

I love chocolate chip cookies, but my grandmother never liked me.
 (Grandma always had good taste; her cookies did not).

Toto, we ain't in Kansas any more!

Kansas is considering 'allowing' students, staff and faculty to exercise their constitutional rights on campus.  And the Administration of the Kansas University System are squirming.

Next summer, in addition to textbooks, laptops and double-strength coffee, Kansas college students will be able to bring something else to class: guns.
Actually, it's not the fear of 'campus violence' which generates this whitey-tighty moment:

Mike Williams, president of the University of Kansas Faculty Senate, says his colleagues are less worried about the possibility of an active shooter and more about accidents and simple disagreements escalating between armed students. 

They're not REALLY citing concerns of an inter-student conflict eruption on the campus:

It's not that a Lover's Quarrel on the Quad might erupt into a firefight, or worry that the campus drug-dealers may start "packing" to defend their 'turf, or even the possibility that there might be an "Accidental Discharge" in the school cafeteria which concerns the university leadership.

No, it's the fear of faculty members that their locked-and-loaded students might take exception to a low grade or a snide comment from their professor during a class-room discussion which soils their BVDs.

A THOUGHTFUL DEBATE:
Oh, to be sure the article addresses the mythical aphorism that "... fear of violence could discourage civil discourse, with students afraid to speak their minds "because of their worry that someone might react with armed violence instead of thoughtful debate." x

That's right.  The faculty has expressed little or no worries about a Gunfight at the OK Corral; they just don't want to get SHOT because they gave a student a lower grade than expected, or because the students feel as if they are being disrespected by the Professorial Ubermenchen.
(As if THAT ever happens in a University Environment!)

Can't blame them for feeling that way, except that:
 (a) folks who want to shoot them will do so whether or not they have a CHL, and
 (b) if "folks who want to shoot them" are in their class, the faculty and staff will be safer with a CHL licensed person in their class, and
 (c) they always have the option to get their own CHL.  But then ... who knows if they are qualified?
 (We do.)  
 (d) and after all, aren't gun-carriers dangerous people?  Why would they want to carry a gun on campus if they didn't want to shoot people?
(Statics show that CHL people are less likely to  commit violent crimes than 'others': see this Texas report of CHL crime statistics.)

Most University websites include the phrase "... our priority is to provide a quality learning environment for our students ..." (or words to that effect).

But really, it's all about the faculty.  And tenure.

Still, fear exists, even if the fearful have "options":

Lib Dems LIKE CDC bias, want to resurrect it!

Senate Democrats: End ban on CDC gun violence research | News - Home:
Oregon's Ron Wyden joins mrore [sic] than a dozen colleagues in plea
 From KTVZ.COM news sources (March 23, 2016)

WASHINGTON -Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 16 fellow Democratic senators are urging Senate appropriators to dedicate funds for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence..

 (Warning: Ron Wyden is a POLITICIAN who never knew a cause which couldn't advance his political career.  He came to my front door once, decades ago when I lived in Portland, asking for my vote.  I told him I didn't want him to represent me, because his values were not mine.  He thanked me for my honest opinion and walked away ... across my front-yard grass instead of using the sidewalk.  That's the kind of mustard he's made of.   But that's just my political, and personal, opinion.)

“We must take this important step because only the United States government is in a position to establish an integrated public-health research agenda to understand the causes of gun violence and identify the most effective strategies for prevention,” the senators wrote in the letter last week.

Decoded, that means that the Liberal Gun-Grabber Contingent of the U.S. Senate has identified the CDC as a Federal entity which is eager to advance the anti-gun agenda, and DEMS love the things the CDC had to say about guns .... until the Senate ceased funding their political bias.

Read the article for a full list of the "Fellow Travellers".  I'm sure you'll recognize most of the names.

Their names all begin with ("D-****").

For example:

Last year, Wyden, along with Markey, introduced bicameral legislation with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., to fund research at the CDC on gun violence prevention and firearms safety. The legislation calls for $10 million each year for six years.

You can see that they're all of the same political bent, determined to rewrite America to fit their personal politics, even if a significant percentage of their 'constituents' despise them and their politics.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Other voices: Lawmakers, OK gun violence research plan:

The San Francisco Chronicle published this editorial on March 19: 

 The raft of new gun policies sweeping the nation — arm teachers, arm students, flash your piece under "open carry" laws — share one trait: There is not a shred of evidence they work to reduce gun carnage.
That is because Congress essentially has banned federal spending on gun violence prevention research for more than 20 years.

(sigh)

I've addressed this issue SO often, (at least twice in the past 2 years) you're tired of hearing about it.
And I'm tired of writing about it.   But the Liberals keep coming back with the Big Lie ... if they say it often enough, loud enough, some people will believe it.

The Truth Is:
The CDC was defunded after the NRA notified the government that they (CDC) had allowed their own personal bias to skew their (federally funded) research findings on Gun Control.

The CDC was free to publish any opinions that seemed reasonable to them, but they were no longer authorized to use federal funding to finance that research.   NOBODY told them they couldn't continue the research, or publish 'biased' reports.

But they were weren't going to be paid for their Liberal Lies; not by the Feds, anyway.  (And they're a Federal Agency, so 'private donations' are frowned on.)

NO OTHER research facility ... either Federal or State ... was affected by this de-funding.

If California wishes to fund research which will prove conclusively (to them) that Guns Have No Redeeming Value, they're welcome to have at it.  Unfortunately, "The Land of Fruits and Nuts" has lost the cachet which was originally ascribed to CDC, so nobody is going to pay much attention to them because we already know that the Second Most Liberal State In The Union is determined to fund any measures which will undermine the 2nd Amendment Rights of their citizens.

 It's all about mind control; not gun control.  And everybody knows that.

---

I've spent the last 6 or 7 years training new shooters who want to compete in Practical Pistol competition.  All seem to be just honest, good-hearted people who want to find  A Place To Shoot, and to compare their skills against other like-minded people.

And yet, there are people who want to renew the mantra that "Guns Are Bad".

Guns are not bad.  There are some people who use them for bad purposes, but I'm fortunate in that my exposure to 100+ NEW friends a year hasn't revealed these 'negative values' in any of the fine folks who take a day out of their life to meet people with similar interests.

And as for those who are determined to see only the down-side of private civilian firearms ownership?

To quote my old Drill Sergeant:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Except, of course for my moments later article about Senator Ron!

Trump's Anti-Semitic Haters (?)

My Trump Tweets Earned Me So Many Anti-Semitic Haters That I Bought a Gun - Opinion – Forward.com:

As any high-profile Twitter user with a Jewish-sounding last name can tell you, the surest way to see anti-Semitism flood your mentions column is to tweet something negative about Donald Trump. My anti-Trump tweets have been met with such terrifying and profound anti-Semitism that I bought a gun earlier this month. Over the coming weeks, I plan to learn how to shoot it better.

This is a new political phenomenon, and one which I'm not pleased to hear about.

I've mentioned before that I'm not totally pleased with the depiction of Donald Trump as a "Conservative" Republican candidate  (it's difficult to envision a "Conservative" who is more conservative than I am), but now we're seeing some shrapnel from the bomb-burst which is the Trump campaign.

It seems that "The Donald" has attracted some followers who are ... very outspoken.  I can accept that, but I don't accept the degree of speech religious intolerance which this blogger has reported.

Is it real, or is it memorex?  
It's hard to know whether the people who are hateful are actual "Trump Supporters" or people who are deliberately posing as such, as a method of driving voters away from the Trump campaign.

I do not like anti-semitic speech,  I've said before that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will support your right to say it".

But there's a limit to free speech, and that limit is reached when the First Amendment is used as an excuse to staunch the free expression of others.

(Yes, I'm aware that statement implies a limit to the Second Amendment as well.  But that's a subject for another discussion.)

I don't think it's "A Bad Thing" that the originator of the article has decided to acquire a firearm for personal protection; as long as she seeks training about how to safely keep and bear arms, she will probably be safer with than without it.

(My assumption is that she is entirely without experience, and it's only reasonable that she finds at least as much instruction in bearing arms as she did when she took "Drivers' Education" in High School.)

Still, I'm appalled that she has been rendered so in fear for her personal security that she seeks to bear arms BECAUSE SOME ONLINE JERK CONFRONTED HER POLITICAL CHOICE!!

None Of The Above

I'm so SICK that there are no dominant political parties in America who have been able to field a candidate which doesn't make me want to hurl.

Can't we just vote for "None of the Above" and, as in video games and computers, just ...
REBOOT?

Well ... yes. But ... no.

I've just completed reading a most sensible, rational screed by a "Gun Control" advocate I've ever seen in 26 years of surfing the Internet for articles on this subject.

Gun Control Is a Misfire | The American Conservative:

• Gun Control Is a Misfire
• What liberals and the NRA both get wrong.

(H/T: The Gun Feed)

The author, Marc Cooper, said in this March 21, 2016 article in The American Conservative, that he was both a Liberal and a gun owner.   He examines both the point of view of the law-abiding civilian firearms owner, and the activists who campaign to strictly regulate civilian firearms ownership.

Or "gun nuts".  vs "liberals";,
(Cooper notes that "gun nuts" is a pejorative term.)

As the word screed implies, it is a very long statement; but perhaps the term is misused here because there is nothing "tedious" about it, and it is far from a "rant".

I was interested that Cooper correctly identified exactly the parts of Liberal gun grabber approaches which are NOT working for them, as well as those gun nut approaches which are working for us gun nuts. (I can say that, because I are one.)

For the Liberals:

For liberals, the very term “gun violence” has been reified [sic ... 'refined'?  'redefined'? 'deified'?] into some sort of natural force, completely detached from any identifiable root causes other than guns themselves—as if .45 semi-automatics, Bushmaster black rifles, and high-capacity magazines exert some hypnotic gravitational pull that beckons latent maniacs to pick them up and spray innocent crowds with military-like barrages.

AND ...

Most of the underpinnings of “gun violence” reforms are based on skewed assumptions, mixed with a sometimes shocking dose of ignorance on the part of policymakers, re-enforced by a media class that cannot often tell one end of a gun from the other. The rhetoric of the movement also continues to stigmatize just about anybody who owns a gun as a knuckle-dragging supporter of fringe militias. Worse, at least from my perspective, the current gun-control strategy also plays directly into the hands of an NRA that is, in fact, more a lobbying group for the gun industry than for gun owners.

AND ...

Liberals also now recur to the scourge of “gun violence” as a convenient way to betray their own historic commitment to greater social justice. No longer do they need to tackle such daunting issues as urban decay, low wages, and poor education because they prefer to reverse cause and effect: if we could only get rid of guns… It’s become a catchall mantra for the disorder of too many urban centers and the marginalization of their inhabitants, who are the ones doing most of the dying—and most of the killing.

I've been posting articles to that exact point for decades; it's nice that someone has had the same opinion about the difference between "Gun Control" and "Violence Control", because this is a sociological issue rather than a legislative issue.

For the Gun Nuts:

"Ve Haf Vays To Make You Toe Der Federal Line"

Our government has accepted as 'normal' the concept that Americans who disagree with the Presidential Policy are subject to legal action.

US Attorney General: 'We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers'.:

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

(Did anyone notice that "D" after Whitehouse's name?)

She's going to involve the FBI here?
Why?

“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,”

Scheme?

If you don't agree with the proposition of "climate change" being solely due to human activities (as opposed to the influence of solar flares), then you are involved in a "SCHEME"?

So, it's a RICO offense to not believe in the Party Line, now?   I would suggest that this is reminiscent of Nazi philosophy, but I've been frightened away from that sort of extremism by the power of "Godwin's Law".

Scientists don’t use the term “consensus,” despite the regular use of the term by politicians who promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process.Yet it’s that “consensus” that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused climate change assumptions.

Here's the bottom line:  The Obama administration MIGHT prosecute citizens who believe in the First Amendment, the right to speak your mind regardless of the official "Party Line".

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson.

THE most Anti-Gun movie ever produced by Hollywood

Blue Steel (1989) - IMDb:

A female rookie in the police force engages in a cat and mouse game with a pistol wielding psychopath who becomes obsessed with her.

If this movie is not the genesis of the egregious term "Ammosexual", I don't know what is.

The part I really like about this movie (Okay, that was a bit over-the-top in the SNARK department) is that it shows a 'common ordinary man' (a successful and wealthy Investment Broker) who happens upon a revolver at a crime scene and it turns him into a raving maniac, obsessed by 'the power of the Evil Gun'.

The thing is, the message of the movie seems to be reflected religiously by the current crop of gun-control enthusiasts, who welcome any excuse to depict guns as tools of the devil ... incarnate.

The actors in the movie are well-known and likable individuals, and they play their roles very well.

Jamie Lee Curtis was just coming off the professional high of a small series of "Horror Movies" (eg: Halloween), and  one wonders if viewers (and reviewers) didn't consider this just another horror flick.

Although, this 1990 1989 movie seems chronologically positioned to feed the hunger of anti-gun causes which welcome ANY depiction of firearms as tools of the devil.

You can read Roger Eberts review here, but he restricts his comments to artistic achievement.   There is no criticism of the basic premise because Hollywood assumes that "guns are bad" and any production which furthers that fantasy is assumed to be a realistic depiction.   (There are a lot of 'external reviews', I won't provide links because there are so MANY opinions!)

SO ... let's be clear about this:

Are we blaming a Jamie Lee Curtis movie for "Firearms Violence"?

No, we're blaming Liberal belief in the fantasy portrayed in her movie for their animosity of a firearm as a source of evil.