Slam Fire

I just read a blog article by Kathy Jackson at "The Cornered Cat" which pulled together a bunch of 'things learned', but I had never taken to heart.

The link is provided below, along with the two most salient paragraphs.  But I want to add a couple of paragraphs describing my own experiences:

(1) Several years ago, I and my Significant Other ("She Who Must Be Obeyed", or SWMBO) were competing in a USPSA/IPSC match at *Un-named Gun Club*, when during a reload with her STI Race Gun her firearm discharged.  She had held her pistol tilted dramatically high, and I KNOW it was a "Slam Fire" because I was the Range Officer and I was watching her carefully.   I Disqualified ("DQ") her, not because I thought she had her finger on the trigger during a reload (which is a DQ-able offence in IPSC/USPSA ... and she did NOT!) but because her muzzle was pointed high and I was sure that the round had left the range. Read: Went Over The Berm

(2) Moving forward a decade or two, I now teach a class in "Introduction to USPSA" for new competitors, and I tell this story to every class.  However, I don't make an effort to emphasize the lesson learned ... always keep the muzzle below the berm.

(3) Significantly, the same range where SWMBO had her Slam Fire episode has in the past few years added a new Range Rule: "Thou Shalt Endeavour to Keep Thy Muzzle Below The Berm, else suffer the Consequences of the Match DQ" (or words to that effect).  Call this "Rule #3".

Local competitors who attended USPSA matches at *Un-named Gun Club* have addressed this to USPSA, which organization has 'disenfranchised" the club from holding "USPSA MATCHES" because the club enforces a rule which is not supported by USPSA.  Or IPSC.

[So *Un-named Gun Club* continues to conduct "USPSA-TYPE" matches, but they call it something else.  I'm told that they *generally* follow the conventions of USPSA competition (many of which are shared by Defensive Concealed Carry Competition), plus their own local rule, but they don't send the results in to USPSA and competitors are not compelled to shoot a "classifier" stage.   Since USPSA doesn't acknowledge the club rules, and USPSA intellectual property (classifier stages, the rule book, and the name of the organization) are not involved, competitors are not credited with competing in an "organized" match.
Essentially, it's just a Fun Match.
It's also an opportunity to spend a pleasant day at the range with your friends, and to get some good solid gun-handling practice under your belt.]

Now, I had thought that Rule #3 was a bit of overkill (forgive the expression), but I had never actually thought it through ... despite my own personal experience.   However, considering the lesson provided by Kathy Jackson (link, and some text, below) I think it's something that I ought to emphasize in future Introduction to USPSA classes.

NOW read Kathy Jackson's comments, or preferably follow the link to the full story (Read The Whole Thing).

Keep the Muzzle Below the Berm | Cornered Cat:

There are far more instances where a gun fires upon slide forward (eg, “slam fire”) than I thought, and many instances where people in a hurry or new to the gun suffer a sympathetic squeeze reaction and fire the gun when they intend to either drop a slide or release a magazine. In most of these cases, the only thing that prevented serious injury or death was that the user fortuitously (sometimes deliberately, but more often fortuitously) pointed the gun in a safe direction. \

 Why are so many instructors and accomplished shooters encouraging people not to keep the gun pointed in the safest possible direction — at the berm — during the reload? What benefit could possibly outweigh the risk of deliberately, repeatedly, and habitually violating one of the fundamental safeguards against death or injury while handling live firearms?

*(Again, go RTWT)

Where The Shooting Is At

Why do teens keep getting murdered in Richmond? Inside the gang violence in the city's public housing communities | City of Richmond | richmond.com:

"If you isolate a community for three generations and remove community services, this is what it look likes," said Art Burton, who has spearheaded a variety of nonprofit and community groups that put him in close contact with teens in Mosby.

Alternate Title:  "Gun Control Only Works On People Who Obey The Law"

"Optimism about gun control"

Gun Owners and Gun Control Advocates will never agree.

Gun Control Advocates believe that all guns are bad, and should be banned.  Anyone who disagrees with them is considered to be a tool of the National Rifle Association.

 Moms’ group’s tactics show there is cause for optimism about gun control - San Francisco Chronicle:

 There’s an old tweet from 2015 that’s resurrected after every mass shooting in the United States, and it resurfaced again after the Las Vegas massacre. 

 “In retrospect,” tweeted Dan Hodges, a political commentator, “Sandy Hook marked the end of the U.S. gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.” I believed the sentiment wholeheartedly — that the National Rifle Association had won and there wasn’t a damn thing we could do about it. 

Law-abiding Gun Owners believe that they are exercising their Constitutional Rights,
 and we wonder why Gun Control Advocates can't understand the difference between ourselves and Mass Murderers (and Inner City Gangs and other purveyors of illegal drugs, whose participation in "turf wars" are exacerbating the toll of firearms murders in America).

As a law-abiding gun owner, and only incidentally a member of the NRA, I take personal exception to the accusation that "killing  children (is) bearable" to me.

Besides being a hunter, competitor and collector of heirloom firearms, I'm also a father, and a grandfather.  Soon I expect to be a great grand-father.  I love my family.  I respect people. I stand proud for my rights to protect them, and myself. 

How am I so different from the authors of the cited article? 
(Other than that I refuse to be intimidated by violent felons who may threaten me and my family, and I have the means and will to resist.)

Unfortunately, on a national level ... the Gun Control Movement" is in danger of tearing this nation apart!

Somehow, the Gun Control Movement feels justified in portraying supporters of  our constitutional rights as irresponsible, unthinkingly selfish, and immoral avoiders of legal restrictions on firearms.   That is absolutely not true; most firearms owners are more cognizant of gun control laws, and are punctilious in their observance.

This kind of faux journalism serves no noble purpose.  Instead, it actively serves to widen the gap between legal firearms owners and readers, who may have no experience or understanding about people who champion their Second Amendment rights.

Exercise:
Using any search argument you choose, look up the number of Concealed Handgun Permit owners convicted of a felony.

Then search for the number of Law Enforcement Officers convicted of a felony.

Feds Fox California ... maybe

In a surprising decision (surprising to people who don't expect "common sense gun laws" in California), a Federal Judge has BLOCKED the California Gun Magazine Confiscation Law!

District Judge R.T. Benitz "... said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case."



The judge went on to say .. oh, just read the whole thing:

Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme | Fox News:

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks California from enforcing their gun magazine confiscation law. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case. He ordered that California immediately stop enforcing the law pending further legal action. "The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis," Judge Benitez said in the ruling. "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs' entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds." 

OMG ... a Federal Judge actually cites the Second Amendment!

Coming up:  Madonna bears child, sings "Like A Virgin!"   and means it!

I've got to post this quickly, before it disappears!

Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme | Fox News:
Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme
By Stephen Gutowski Published July 03, 2017 Washington Free Beacon

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks California from enforcing their gun magazine confiscation law. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case. He ordered that California immediately stop enforcing the law pending further legal action.
 "The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis," Judge Benitez said in the ruling. "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs' entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds."

[I tried to post this without comment, but BLOGGER dot com locked up.  It took me a while to recover the original text, so I'm posting it without much comment just to get it online before some other ...  bizarre circumstances  .. locked me up again, and this time loses my content.]

LATER:

Glad the post was published.

This is a significant judicial decision, not only because it challenges the "10 round magazine" limitation (which is common in most gun-unfriendly states}, but also because it established an "At Least" standard for magazine capacity which most states are bound to follow.

There are other significant ramifications of this judicial ruling:

First, it acknowledges the protection from the tyranny of the majority  ... which is always an issue when discussing Second Amendment Freedoms.  That the opinion was issued by a sitting judge is significant; it's not the errant rambling of a gun-guy, but the judicial opinion of a respected member of the court.

Second, there is a controversy between pro-gun and anti-gun forces which are generally considered to be nothing more than a matter of opinion; the judicial ruling cited here resolves the controversy, at least in terms of whether a 10-round magazine ought to be established as a minimum "load limit" (for want of a better expression).

One of the more obnoxious issues in gun-control controversy has been "what is a legitimate legal limit for magazine capacity".  I've always opined that there is no legitimate limit, if only because pro-gun and anti-gun forces have been unable disinclined to reach an agreement.  By this, we have established a minimum legitimate magazine capacity.  It's not much, but it's a start!

Third, (and I'm admittedly expanding on an issue raised in the preceding paragraph), there is another issue: when the "Other Side" of the issue enters into a discussion as to how many rounds in a magazine should be accepted as "optimal", they have already tacitly accepted that individual firearms ownership is a legitimate situation, and not subject to further discussion.  But some of those kind folk are adamant about the number of rounds should be permitted in a magazine, to all acceptable performance in the limited applications of firearms force they are willing to accept.

There is an old joke about prostitution, which ends with the punchline:

"We have already established 'what kind of girl you are';  Now we are only bickering about the price".

Not to belie the (perhaps inappropriate) discussion: nobody knows, or can make a definitive argument for, exactly "how many rounds" are appropriate for a magazine to define the difference between "not enough for defense" and "too many for sport".

My personal opinion is "you can never have too much ammunition, nor too many magazines!". 

But I'm guilty of using competitive criteria (USPSA competition allows an unlimited number of rounds and magazines in a variety of competitive classes) and some critics of the sport complain that the usage of 25+ round capacity magazines is, at best, "unrealistic".

My invariable response is: "It's a GAME, Sport!  If you can't pay, you shouldn't play."

Who says that gun ownership is only about self defense?  Shooting is fun because ... it's fun!

UBC ... the slippery slope to gun owners who can't prove their innocence

Don't be fooled about UBC (Universal Background Checks).

The problem isn't about knowing who has what guns;  the problem is about who has a gun which the state may unilaterally decide to confiscate.

"Oh, they wouldn't do THAT!"

Bullshit.  California did exactly that in 2015/2016:

REDDING, Calif. - A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

(And by the way, Oregon is toying with the same legislation ... it's so NICE to live in a Liberal State!)

Why would your 'family or friends' turn you into the Confiscation Cops?  Because they love you!

And you're going to jail, Buddy.  Isn't love wonderful?

The Problem with Universal Background Checks *(UBC)* is that it is tantamount to Universal Registration ... which is the first step to Universal Confiscation.

Lawsuit Filed Over Unimplemented Universal Background Check - Bearing Arms - Anti-Gun Laws, Gun Control, Nevada, universal background checks:

The problem with universal background checks is that nothing about them is particularly enforceable. The transfer of a firearm to a family member is just one example. Unless the state maintains a full database of who has which guns, it’s impossible to determine just when a gun was transferred and to whom. 

That's not a 'problem'; that's a FEATURE!

Why do you think The State needs a "full database of who has which guns"?

Because they want to know just which doors to knock on, and which guns they can confiscate there.  And if they don't find the guns their registration database tells them they should expect, you're in a heap of trouble, Bubba!

Oh, someone stole your gun(s)?

Guess what ... there's a companion law requiring you to report gun  thefts within x-number of days.   You didn't notice they were gone?  Sorry ... put your hands behind your back, and tell your wife and children goodbye.   You're going to jail, Bubba.  You'll have to prove your innocence.

Personally, I couldn't tell you how many guns I own, let alone how many of which type.  Serial numbers?  Some  most ALL of them don't have serial numbers. 

"I don't need no stinking serial numbers!"

This isn't America.  It's California, and now Nevada, and (coming soon) it's Oregon.

I didn't vote for this, in Oregon, my Native state.  It's to be a 'regulation', not a state constitutional issue.   Second Amendment be damned.   "We don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment."

"Liberal Politics" isn't politics;  it's "Hi!  I'm From The Government and I'm Here to make sure that you understand that we own your a**!"

Some folks don't appreciate their efforts.

A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.

I love SLATE!    They use the most bizarre arguments to bolster political opinions which are indefensible, which makes them vulnerable to a simple statement of fact to discredit their opinions.

A case in point:

SLATE: A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.:

The 27 words of the Second Amendment don’t say anything about how many guns someone can own in America. Neither do the other 7,564 words in the Constitution. Yes, this is a facile point to make. A lot of things—including rights, responsibilities, and government powers we take for granted—aren’t itemized in the Constitution. While saying you can’t find something doesn’t necessarily mean anything, conservatives use this trick all the time.

The conclusion which SLATE derives from this 'logic' is undermined by their own acknowledgement that 'this is a facile point to make"  Slate has committed a Prima Fascia argument which is easily refuted.   Liberals use this trick all the time. 

 What the 2nd Amendment says (in so many words) is "... shall not be infringed ...".   The Second Amendment has been clearly defined as NOT endowing American citizens with a right; that right antecedes the Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment exists solely to enumerate rights which pre-exist the Constitution.   When SLATE decides to re-interpret the Constitution, it demonstrates either an immature comprehension of the document, or a willing mis-interpretation to support it's own political position.

To deliberately misconstrue the Constitution in this manner is an egregious effort to sway ill-informed readers toward the SLATE's author's own personal bias.

Limiting the number of an object which 'may' legally be owned is awkward and unlikely in the instance of any object; in the specific instance of firearms ownership, it is explicitly forbidden by the Constitutional admonition: "... shall not be infringed ..." and this limitation is obviously an infringement. 

The argument "you don't need more than one gun to hunt deer" is facile and quite beside the point.   Even if it were not: I own firearms for several purposes:  Competition *(RIFLE, SHOTGUN, PISTOL)*, self-defense, Deer hunting, Antelope hunting, Elk hunting, Rabbit hunting, Bird hunting (several varieties), plinking, TEOTWAWKI ....there are the reasons for my ownership of at least a dozen firearms! 

And I own heritage firearms, passed down from father to sons for at least three generations.  I've passed some of them down to my son ...and would pass them down to my daughter, except she's not interested.  I love her anyway.

Not that I need to explain my "need to own firearms: but a lot of people don't understand that their life style is not comparable with my own.   For example, I don't live in a Major Metropolitan Area.  And I don't have children or 'untrained individuals' sharing my residence.

Note that the Second Amendment was originally objected to by many of our Founding Fathers, because they believed  that to provide specifications was to invite contest of a basic 'inalienable' right.  They couldn't imagine why anyone would want to refute the simple RIGHT to defend nation, family, home, self, possessions.

In retrospect, they seem to have been correct in predicting that Liberals (a term which definition has been reversed since the 18th Century) may use that single amendment to justify their opposition,

I don't know why they *(anti-gun folks, which term I admit I use interchangeably with "Liberals")* continue to rant and rail against the Second Amendment; it simply affirms that firearm ownership is a right for Americans, regardless of any another restriction except those which are "proven factors" that an individual is not legally, mentally or emotionally competent to exercise their Constitutional rights in this area.

According to Liberals, there are no citizens who are competent to exercise this right.  I suspect that this may be a "projection", because they don't think that they are personally capable of rational thought or civil exercise of their rights.

The single exceptions , according to Liberals, are Law Enforcement Personnel, and active duty member of the Armed Forces. Personally, I have known both LEOs and Soldiers that I wouldn't trust with a gun. (I've served with a couple of soldiers who were mentally, emotionally and physically incompetent.)   As a consequence, I'm somewhat dubious about the whitewash for "police and military" as being universally competent.

SLATE apparently thinks that the "clear intentions" of the authors of the Constitution is passe', and no longer applicable to current American thought.

There are millions of responsible firearms owners who will take personal exception to SLATE's pompous assumption of moral and civic authority.