The Village

The match meant absolutely nothing.

You know what I mean. It's like a football (basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer) game, the results of which would have no effect on the league standing. Except it was an IPSC match, the competitors were all amateurs who were out on an unseasonably sunny Spring day in Oregon, spending their money and their time enjoying a sport that they all loved.

The Hobo Brasser was back for his first Oregon match of the year, having spent the previous three months (or was it four?) Snowbirding in Texas.

The clement weather drew 83 competitors to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club on an April Saturday, for no better purpose than to meet&greet, foul the air with burnt powder and unsolicited political opinion, punch holes in expensive cardboard, perhaps shake the winter doldrums in a tacit vote for Sunny Summer Days yet to come.

Blue skies and bullets downrange, it don't get no better'n this. Even urbane professionals can't resist the urge to feel the gravel beneath their feet and the sunshine on their shoulders (make them happy in a way John Denver would never have understood!) We all have a little redneck in our souls, and we tend to talk a little country in this one month of the year when we can shoot an IPSC match with no pressure of competition but much to look forward to.

One match a month is a Points Match, when we crank the competitive challenge of the stage designs up a notch or three and pretend that we really care whether we win or lose.

This was not one of those matches.

If anything, it was a celebration of Spring, and we were perhaps all a little giddy with the song of the still-absent Robins ... who hadn't wised up that it was time to put a red-breasted show on for the wife and family who professed to believe that we HAD to shoot this match to get ready for the 2006 Competitive Season.

That's the nice thing about a family. You pretend that participation at The Match is a moment of great portent, and they pretend to believe you. The lawn remains unmowed and ragged as father and son ... The Old Man and The Boy, in the words of Ruark ... make their way to the range for a rite of passage which isn't even the first match of the year; it's merely the first really nice day match of the year.

SWMBO and I were squadded with some of the Usual Suspects. It was a treat to see Harold The Barbarian there, because he has been travelling on business for the past 30,000+ miles and we had missed him.

AJ and KJ weren't there, they've kind of dropped out of the IPSC scene due to 'other priorities' and the unfair influence of a brand new Harley Davidson Motorcycle. [sigh!]

As a result of many factors, we were squadded with a melange of people with whom we don't often shoot. Among these more or less new-to-us were Trey and Drew.

Trey is a thirty-something C-Production shooter. Drew is a mid-teens D-Limited Junior. Both were using glocks, and knew each other from non-IPSC family connections.

As the match developed, Trey and Drew (short for Andrew) started a little friendly competition. Trey offered to give five dollars to Drew if he, Drew, could get more alpha-hits than him, Trey. There was no downside to the 'bet'. It was no more than a gentle challenge to the Junior shooter to make his best effort to beat the more experienced, older shooter in a clearly defined, easily quantifiable friendly competition.

Come on, kid. Give it your best shot. Don't worry about speed; focus on accuracy. All you have to do to win the brass ring.

In the blink of an eye, this was no longer just a Saturday at the Range. It had turned into a Shooting Match.

The Old Man was no longer just another guy on the the gravel, he was An Opponent.

The Boy was no longer just a Boy, he was A Contender determined to Do His Best and show all of the Old Men that he could stand his ground and fight it out for the greater glory of ... something or other.

For six stages the went back and forth. The Boy never quite got ahead, but he never quit. After each stage they followed the Scorekeeper around and borrowed his pen so they could write their Alpha-count on the palm of their hand, soon to be transferred to a ragged scrap of paper. This wasn't an official score, it was a talley of the challenge offered and the challenge met.

Who won? I don't know. The rest of the squad ... Old Men, all ... kept a peripheral view of the competition, unwilling to spoil it for the participants by showing an unseemly interest.

The final accounting, and the pay-out (or lack of pay-out) was a private thing between The Old Man and The Boy. Nobody was willing to spoil the moment by interfering in that intensely personal competition.

--

Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote a book about "It Takes A Village" (to raise a child), and while I'm no fan of HillBill, I have to admit that somewhere in this obscure tome she may have had a point. Whether she actually made the point is as inconsequential as the actual results of this competition.

We all, all of us Old Men, have a responsibility to teach the next generation what sports and competition and basic human interaction are all about. Some of us see this, and take the time/make the effort to do what has to be done to teach The Boy how to act.

Most of us don't, and that's okay. If you don't see the need, if you don't know how to respond to it, you probably aren't the right person to teach by example. Those few remaining Old Men don't even have to think about it

They just love the children, and by example they make men of boys. In doing so, they show that you don't have to be a Feral Child (as so many young men are today) to become a Man.

The match didn't mean a thing, but it was important because ...

Well, you know.

2005 Croc Match: Jungle Run Junior S. Kemper

The Jungle Run at the (Dundee, Oregon) Banzai Ballistic Croc Match YOU GOT BULLETS? must be the ultimate "IPSC Field Course".

The targets are hidden behind trees, bushes, ferns and the occasional no-shoot. Worse, it's sucha a target-rich environment, and extends over such a long linear distance (50 yards, give or take) that it would be virtually impossible to remember where the targets are hidden.

But that's not the worst part; the worst is that it's a Surprise Course, and you don't even get to SEE the stage before you shoot it. There are always one or two or more fern-cloaked targets that you don't see, unless you are paying very close attention, so if you're inclined to merely take CRO Loren's Mystery-Clue advise and "RUN!", you'll be sure to gain a couple of miss/failure-to-engage penalties.

Your only choice is to move carefully, watch both sides of the trail, and trust Loren and Sherrie to have hidden a couple of sneaky-buggers at the one place where you are sure to be distracted.

Here's Junior-shooter S. Kemper's first Croc Match Jungle Run. Pay close attention, as almost half-way through the stage he paused during a reload to make sure that the RO team is in a safe position, well behind him. This kind of dedication to Safety above all other considerations is a result of the kind of training which continues to keep IPSC a safe sport in even the most thrill-packed situations, and we're glad to see that "IPSC: The Next Generation" is alive and well in Oregon.




(Original AVI-format video courtesy Ron Downs)
We'll probably see a couple more Juniors videos during the next week or two, as they attempt the Jungle Run. (If I can get this furslignener embedded code thingie to work!)

If you think you're tough enough to face the dreaded Jungle Run, the 2006 version (which shall certainly be different ... and tougher!) will take place during Labor Day Weekend (September 2-3.) For early registration, contact Bill Marrs, also known as "Barsoom" for reasons which may not be obvious if you're not a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Entry forms are not yet available on the Internet, but you can bet your jungle boots that when they are, you'll find an announcement here at Cogito Ergo Geek, or on the Columbia Cascade Section or Dundee Club websites. Certainly, it will be available in the USPSA Front Sight Magazine, perhaps a little closer to the actual match date.

The Captain and the Nihilist

Captain of a Crew of One: The Sword of Damocles
As I age (speaking in terms of blogging experience), I find that I am increasingly reluctant to directly reference the writings of other Bloggers.

Those whom I especially respect, I link to on the sidebar and expect you to go visit them as frequently as I do. You read their stuff, you get their drift, and you can make your own damn decision whether you hold their work in as high regard as do I.

For me to quote them seems like some kind of perverse reguritation. You see their articles, you can make up your own mind.

Once in a while, though, we encounter a post which seems especially significant in light of something-or-other (which we may not be able to define, but dammit we know it when we see it!)

So it is that I draw your attention to the April 5, 2006 article by Captain of a Crew of One, appropriately entitled "The Sword of Damocles".

Damocles, you may recall, was a sycophant in the 4th century court of the Tyrant of Syracuse (Greece, not New York) Dionysus. (I always though Dionysus was the Greek equivalent of Baccus, the god of Wine, and Festival, and Drunken Debauchery ... but what do I know?) Dam casually observed one day how idyllic was the life of the Tyrant, and at the next feast he was treated to the sight of a sword hanging over his own head, suspended by a single horse-hair. The thrust of the legend is that being in power doesn't necessarily mean that life is always good for the boss; no matter who you are, no matter how powerful you are in your house, you are still subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

A Nihilist, on the other hand, is one who believes only in Nihilism: "an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. "

That implies that your own decisions, based purely on subjective values, are sufficient without extential evidence. I've chosen the term "Nihilist" to describe a "New Jersey woman" (see below) who, in making decisions about the upbringing of her child, chooses priorities which differ from mine. It may be inapplicable, and it's certainly unfair ... but the jazzy title did catch your attention, didn't it?


The story told by The Captain is of a New Jersey woman who is so Politically Correct that her jaws must ache every time she clenches her teeth to speak. She has forbidden guns in the house ... even (or especially) toy guns. But one day her young son breaks his piggy bank to buy a plastic sword, a plastic dagger, and a bow-and-arrow with rubber suction darts. He is aware that "mommy doesn't like weapons", but loves her son so much that she is unable to deny him this small freedom ... as long as he is just "shooting vegetables". (She actually quotes this line, and abhores the attitude in an acquaintance of hers, but still she adopts it when her son promises "I'll just shoot trees". One wonders if she sees herself in this apparent aside, but one suspects that she doesn't consciously realize that she is just like the mother of the boy that she "feel(s) sorry for".

The Captain takes this grain and mills it into fine grist. As he discusses the boy-ness of boys, the male-ness of males, and how important it is that overly protective mothers not spend the entire childhood of their children stifling the natural instincts of developing men to teach themselves to protect the family, The Captain develops the theme that it is not only doing a disservice to our children when we attempt to over protect them, but also that love will triumph as we instinctively perceive that our intellectual priorities my not be as important as the proper development of the ego of our children.

That is, we can teach our children our own personal political priorities, but there comes a time in every child's life when we realize that in insisting that they cleave to our beliefs, we are no longer teaching them; we face the danger of dominating them. The wise parent must eventually acknowledge that our children are not ourselves writ small, but are developing their own personalities and their own judgement. The danger is that we can exercise our parental power to their detriment.

That moment inevitably comes at a much earlier time than we have prepared ourself for, and we always doubt that our permissions are more valid than our domination.

It is to the great credit of this mother that she is able to accept the inevitable and trust in the values she has instilled in her son. She can step aside and, having reinforced the warning that these are toys and weapons, and must be treated as weapons, they must never be turned against people -- she is willing to aquiesce in his desire to buy his own plastic sword, plastic dagger, and bow-and-arrow with rubber suction tips.

The Captain is eloquent in his analysis of the quandry. My favorite sentence in his essay is:

... parents like Ms. DeVoe seem to suffer from “ostrich” disease. You know, that ailment that causes you to imagine that if you ignore reality it will just go away and leave you alone.

He is speaking, of course, of her early indicision and the way she at first agonizes over her situation. He may have also been referring to her initial embarassement when her friends see that her son has 'weapons'. Her response to her son is:

"I don't like the fact that it involves guns and you shoot each other," I objected feebly.

Her justification to her PC friends and acquaintances:

Naturally, he couldn't resist showing off his new arsenal. He chooses two weapon-hating moms in the grocery store and unveils his new toy. He doesn't notice their obvious lack of enthusiasm or their questioning looks at me. I feel my face getting red.

"He spent his own allowance," I mutter. "He had his heart set on it."

Fortunately, the mother does allow her love for her son to prevent her 'natural' instinct to dominate him. After all, it's not the Evil Cap Pistol, and he has sworn to her that he will 'only shoot trees'.

--

My own reaction is probably less gentle than The Captain. In this post-WWII, post-Korea, post-Vietnam / Bosnia / Twin Towers / Afghanistan / Iraq and "they choose life, we choose death" era, I would suggest that there is a reasonable liklihood that the young man's life will not always include the protective influence of a PC mother. It is possible that he will find himself in apolcalyptic situations, no matter how far removed, where he will be opposed by a people who do NOT accept his learned pacifist tendencies, and he will be required to choose between acceptance of a dominating 'ology' and continuance of his own way of life, or even his physical life and the life of his family.

He would be better equipped if this young man had at least some smattering of experience which suggested that the world does not always turn as we would like it, but as it will.

When the choice is not always yours, it is well to be able to recognize the difference.

Life is what happens when you have made other plans.

SWMBO speaks

SWMBO allowed me to talk her into posting on the blog. Unfortunately, we had trouble with the YOUTUBE code and lost her comments.

Instead of trying to ply her with liquor, I'll merely mention that this is her first exercise in editing a *.MPG file into a presentable *.WMV movie, and presenting it in an easy-to-view format on the blog.

There was some controversy on this stage, as some observers (The Hobo Brasser, who is back from Snowbirding) contended that the Competitor (Jerry the Geek) may have broken the 180 rule when ducking under the Cooper Tunnel. To this we can only reply ... doesn't show up in the video, dude; didn't happen, either!

The video makes The Geek look good, if only because it doesn't show the Alpha/Mike/Noshoot on the first target on the stage. [Note to self: Shoot, THEN traverse to the next target!]

Video plays on-screen, duration: 19 seconds

BATF Wars against Gunsmiths

I received this email today from The Unofficial IPSC list (H/T: JH). As a result, I subscribed to "The Outdoor Wire" newsletter, but I haven't received a copy yet so I can't vouch for its veracity. And my internet search, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, hasn't turned up a MSM source

Even though my source (JH) has always been reliable, I encourage you to consider this an "Internet Rumor" until it can be confirmed.

Are we going to lose our custom gunsmiths?

When does customization of a firearm become manufacturing? That seemingly simple question is occupying the near undivided attention of the firearms industry. Observers say it is a question with the potential to become a firestorm that could put custom gunsmiths out of business; if not behind bars.

The controversy began with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms inspection of Competitive Edge Gunworks in Bogard, Missouri. BATF and tax agents appeared and began examining the company's records. When they finished, owner Larry Crow was told he potentially faced felony charges for manufacturing firearms without a license.

Crow says he was stunned.

Agents went on to tell him that his manufacturing status would mean liability for federal excise taxes - and penalties - from the beginning of his business. There is, they told the thunderstruck Crow, no statute of limitations for failing to file Federal Excise Taxes, but there were serious penalties.

"I'm confused, " an obviously shaken Crow told The Outdoor Wire during a telephone conversation last Thursday, "and more than a little concerned."

Since the BATF visit, Crow hasn't done any gunsmithing, but has initiated the licensure process necessary to change his classification from gunsmith to manufacturer. He also says he's agreed with the BATF to settle the whole matter as quickly as possible. In the meantime, Crow says he's struggling financially, but despite the costs of waiting for his licensure process to be completed, he told The Outdoor Wire "I'm not doing any more work until the manufacturing paperwork's complete."

Whether Crow's is a single case brought by an overzealous agent or the opening shot of a BATF campaign against gunsmiths has the entire firearms industry abuzz.

If it proves to be the first shot of another fight, the stakes are very high. The fallout would be felt by virtually any company or individual involved in the gunsmithing business; from individual gunsmiths and educators teaching firearms repair to companies like Brownells or Midway USA. Those companies primarily supply componentry to gunsmiths, but also produce instructional material. The firearms they produce in the course of those instructional pieces are apparently enough to qualify them as manufacturers in this very narrow interpretation. Likewise, custom gunsmiths' samples are also apparently under scrutiny.

Consequently, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association and others are looking for clarification of a single question: at what point does gunsmithing become manufacturing?

BATF regulations appear to offer a solid definition of manufacturing. It would appear, says experts, that a new, and considerably narrower definition is being used against Crow. A definition that has the potential to make virtually any change, from changing parts inside the lockworks to re-barreling or changing firearm calibers enough to constitute manufacturing. Enough, for example, to make any gunsmith's show samples or writers' samples "manufactured" and subject to taxes and penalties.

Should that become the new working definition for ATF and IRS enforcement agents, gunsmiths we've contacted the effect would be immediate and would bankrupt what they consider "one of America's remaining cottage industries."

Hamilton Bowen, of Bowen Custom Arms in Louisville, Tennessee, is a longtime gunsmith and member of the prestigious gunsmiths' guilds. He feels the narrow definition "won't stick" should it come to a fight. He also says the fight itself might be sufficient to put gunsmiths out of business.

"We might win the fight," Bowen said, "but the loss of business along
with the associated legal fees for the fight would more than put most of
us out of business."

"If the ATF came in and told me that I was liable for federal excise taxes and penalties for all the years I've been in business, I'd just hand them the keys and head to the unemployment office," he said. "ATF is charged with writing regulations to enforce Congressional statutes. They have the ability to clarify statutes, but this one's anything but clear."

San Antonio, Texas gunsmith Alex Hamilton agrees. "I'm essentially a sole proprietor," he says, "if the ATF came in here and started an in-depth investigation, I couldn't work for a couple of reasons. First, I'd be afraid not to be with them the whole time they were here. Secondly, the anxiety their even being here would cause would keep me from doing my job anyway."

The issue isn't licensure; manufacturing licenses are relatively inexpensive, although they add another layer of paperwork and compliance to a small business group that says it already spends a disproportionate amount of working time on compliance paperwork. A retroactivity tax liability could spell significant enough economic damage to shut most gunsmiths down.

Off the record, industry officials say they're starting to receive reports of other gunsmiths being "visited" by BATF officers. Despite those unconfirmed reports, they remain confident the situation can be clarified and a confrontation avoided.

That might be the equivalent of whistling in a graveyard.

Battles between the firearms industry and the BATF have historically been bitter, protracted affairs. Passage of recently-introduced legislation giving gunsmiths a 50-firearm annual tax exemption passed late in the prior Congressional session. The battle to get the legislation introduced, however, took 15 years. It still lacked the support to win the retroactivity gunsmiths had hoped for.

Although they unwilling to say so on the record, some gunsmiths feel the BATF may be getting a little "payback" for the passage of legislation they so vehemently opposed.

In the meantime, the National Rifle Association is attempting to mediate what may have the potential to blossom from a skirmish into a bitter war.

Eric Schwartz, clerk to the NRA's Chief Legislative Counsel, told The Outdoor Wire, "we believe there are inconsistencies by ATF and the IRS that make it difficult, if not impossible, for a law-abiding gunsmith to practice their trade."

"We'd like to see, if necessary, steps taken to address any inconsistencies and make it crystal-clear what acts are manufacturing acts and which are gunsmithing acts so our members can ply their trade in a law-abiding manner."

That might be easier said than done.

One obstacle in the way of "crystal clarity" is a multitude of statutes, regulatory language and opinions; many of which appear to contradict each other. Another; the simple fact that the question lies squarely at an intersection of IRS and BATF regulatory and enforcement areas.
From the Outdoor Wire


Both agencies have reputations as ferocious opponents to any perceived weakening of their enforcement powers.

The Federal Excise Tax itself may prove to be a bone of litigation should a gunsmith be deemed to be a manufacturer. As observers have pointed out, a Federal Excise Tax on the firearm had already been paid - by the original manufacturer.

Deeming a firearm to have been "manufactured" in the course of customization and subject to FET appears to be a BATF attempt at "double dipping" the firearms industry.

Further, in customization and gunsmithing, labor is the major cost. The gunsmith would have already paid federal income tax on that labor.
Again, this creates an apparent attempt at double-taxation.

And what about record keeping? For income tax purposes, businesses are required to maintain their records for a clearly-defined period. BATF has implied no statute of limitations on the potential FET liability for gunsmiths that find themselves declared manufacturers. Consequently, there would be a requirement that records be kept in perpetuity. That creates what legal experts call a "practical impossibility" - a situation where one federal agency creates a requirement that's "practically impossible" to satisfy. Small businesses normally operate in small spaces, i.e., tax records outside the IRS maintenance requirements are routinely destroyed as each year's taxes are filed.

Whether the BATF visit to Competitive Edge was a single agent operating under a personal interpretation of regulations or the first shot in another war between the firearms industry and the BATF is, at this point, irrelevant.

If this is, as I expect, a true rendition of the facts, we have one more example of the BATF (or whatever they call themselves this week) working overtime to plague the firearms industry with egregious penalties imposed by ex post facto laws.

I'm too disheartened to comment now. Please write your own rant, I'll probably agree with most of what you say and a good portion of what you think, as long as it's something along the lines of "Is there no way to curb the predation of these infidels against honest men?"

2005 Croc Match: Yong Lee - The Doors

The Crazy Croc Banzaii Ballistic Match ("You got Bullets?") is probably the biggest the biggest IPSC-style high-round-count Pistol Match in the World. For sure, it's the biggest in America.

In the 2005 match, SWMBO shot pictures instead of shooting the match. I know she was disappointed at not being able to compete, but in the process she shot what may be World-Class photos and videos of a truly unique pistol match.

This is the first of a planned series of easy-to-access (if you have a high-speed internet connection) videos of that match.

The match was held during Labor Day weekend, September, 2005. This year (2006) it is again scheduled for Labor Day weekend. The match consists (at last count) of eight stages with approximately 50 rounds per stage ... total match round count of over 450 rounds! Yes, there are 60+ round stages in the match!

To sign up for the 2006 match, go to www.columbia-cascade.org and look under "Special Matches". (More detailed information to be added 'later'.)

To see what it takes to win a stage, see the video presentation below.

Stage 5: "The Doors".
Scenario: shoot a lot, really fast!

guns-in-parking-lots bill: Florida SB206

WPEC NEWS 12 - The 1•2 Turn To

After two hours of surfing the net, I've found NO other reference which suggests progress in Florida's Senate Bill 206 which would not only allow employes to keep firearms in their cars at their workplace, but would also allow prosecution of employers who forbid this expression of the Second Amendment.

Still, the Channel 12 CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach, Florida has announced that the bill did "inch (sic) forward today."

The fact that I was unable to find supporting news releases tonight MAY be because the news was so recently released. Or it may be that the Main Stream Media (MSM) didn't usually consider it a news-worthy item. Or, to exercise my Geekish Paranoia-bone, it may be that the news is being suppressed, or Channel 12 may have got it wrong and it's all a cruel hoax designed solely to build my RKBA hopes up only to crush my spirits in the morning.

Here's the full text of the announcement:

Compromise on Weapons Bill
Written By : Melissa Dart
April 5, 2006 - 12:02AM

A bill to let gun owners bring their guns to work and keep them locked in their cars inch forward today.

It took six tries for lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee to move the bill past its first committee.

In the end, they agreed gun owners can keep their weapons locked in their cars at work, unless businesses show a compelling safety concern to ban the practice.

Companies that might be exempted would include security outfits and hazardous waste companies.

Companies that might be exempted would include security outfits and hazardous waste companies.

The law could also would allow companies to ban employees from bringing a weapon who have a history of violence or problems with the company and businesses also wouldn't be responsible for any crimes the individuals committed with the guns.

The National Rifle Association's Marion Hammer says she can live with the new bill.

The handgun-toting grandmother told legislators that voters' gun rights don't end when they drive into parkinglots.

On the other hand business representatives maintain property owners have the
right to set the rules for those entering their turf.

I made my prediction on February 9, 2006, that this bill was a pipe dream. I expected (in my usual droll, optimistic manner) that this was a foregone conclusion. The NRA is lacking in leadership, they're indulging in wishful thinking when they think they can take on major corporate employers (eg: ConocoPhillips) and win, and that the best they could hope for was a 'good fight' and they might elicit some (insufficient) support from new Supremes Roberts and Phillips. My expectation was that the NRA was forcing a fight they knew they couldn't win, but were expecting this battle to be a precursor to something bigger -- such as a challenge to previous court decisions restricting RKBA such as Emerson and Silviera and even Miller et al.

This may be considered 'progress' by those of us who consider RKBA rights should take precedence over property rights. I count myself among them, and for good cause: Luby's, a school assault where a teacher ran out to his car and grabbed his gun to help disarm the murderer (I'll look up the reference later and include the URL in an update), and any wolf-among-sheep reference you can think of. But the most important thing is that there is, in my personal opinion, no reason why your boss should decide (a) when you should have access to a defensive firearm, and (b) whether you should be able to put your range gear in your car in the morning, so you can run out to the range and practice after work.

Your friends and co-workers may freak out if you show up open-carrying, and I don't blame them that much. They don't know you well enough to trust that you aren't about to go postal on them. Still, when AOL (for example) fires employees because they take off their carry-gun when they get to the parking lot and leave it in the car, it seems as if paranoia has become the new ruler of your life in America.

It happens. It isn't right, unless you're a firm believer that everyone who has a firearm is a massacre just waiting to happen. Still, it's The Golden Rule: "He Who Has the Gold, Makes The Rules."

I still don't believe that it may become the law of the land that employers are constrained from preventing employees keeping guns in their cars, but I would be delighted if it happens. In this time of terrorist strikes and "Hate America" thinking, that two-minute run to your car could conceivably be the difference between life and death for dozens of innocents when someone breaks the existing laws and starts shooting up your workplace.

Does this sound paranoid? Perhaps, but it HAS happened and continues to happen from time to time.

While honest citizens are prevented by current law from defending themselves, criminals are, by definition, not constrained by law.

SCHOOLS:
Schools are a special case. We all want to protect our children, and it seem so reasonable to expect that if we pass laws against allowing people to carry guns on school grounds, it ought to protect the children.

At least, it seem that was as long as we assumed that people were universally civilized. Until Columbine, and Jonesboro, and Red Lake, and Beslan.

Laws don't protect schools, and they don't protect children. We wish it were otherwise, but our national and global experience proves that wishful thinking doesn't protect anybody.


John Lott believes, for example, that teachers should be allowed to be armed. Why? Think "Columbine". Think about the previous paragraphs.

Workplaces ... are different. And yet the same. We never know what is going to happen, or where it is going to happen. All we know is that the worst COULD happen, at the worst possible place and time

And so the Florida is placed in the uncomfortable position of once again being he frontiersman, who takes the arrow for the rest of us while the legislature has many other concerns with which to deal.

We wish them good luck.

Travis Tomasie - The Perfect Reload

Why must all of my heroes be either younger than I am, or dead?

Answer: because I'm so old.
Here's a video (shockwave flash) of my IPSC hero demonstrating how to reload your pistol.



Go ahead, click on the "play" arrow. You'll be amazed.

You can also download it for yourself, here. It's a 3.53MB mpg file, but you can keep it and play it over and over, in full-screen mode if you like. With sound.

My apologies for not crediting the video. It has been copied and republished so many times, I've lost track of where I found it.

More about Nebraska Shall Issue Law

Are you as amazed as I am that both Kansas and Nebraska passed Right To Carry laws within one week of each other? It's even more incredible considering the stiff resistance that citizens of both states faced, and the many years of battle needed to impose their will on reluctant politicians.

In a way, it makes it more difficult for writers to give as much attention to the process and results of each state's success, when it's such a target-rich environment this week. We're almost forced to focus on one or the other story, if only because of the dearth of available pajama time for bloggers. I've decided to talk about Nebraska, which is the newest champion of the RKBA movement. Besides, I've already written about it yesterday.

I've just spent an hour searching the internet for news about the Nebraska bill LB 454, and you probably aren't surprised to hear that the Main Stream Media -- even the Main Stream Internet News -- has ignored the topic in favor of pediphile teachers and political demonstrations.

But Blogistan has the news, and the answers that a lot of Second Amendment Afficianados are looking for.

THE LAW:
Let's look at the actual bill, Nebraska LB 454.
(Legislative Bill 454, available as a 15-page PDF file)

This was initially sponsored by State Senator Jeanne Combs, and the copy of the bill states that the First Reading was January 13, 2005. The version that I'm looking at was posted by the State of Nebraska in May of 2005, and I'm assuming that this is the version which was passed. (If I later find I'm wrong, I'll post corrections as necessary and note it on at UPDATE at the bottom of the page.)

The first question everybody asks is: "Is this a Shall Issue law?" The answer is a resounding YES!

The Concealed Handgun Permit Act (CHPA) is specific to handguns, and does not address carrying concealed weapons in general. It costs $100, is issued by county sheriffs (who get half of the fee, the other half goes to the state for their processing fees and the remainder, if any, goes to the General Fund) and is valid for a period of five years. Renewal fee is $50.

The applicant must complete an application form, provide two sets of fingerprints, be an American citizen and adult resident of Nebraska, be a non-felon, and present an original Certificate of Training.

The Sheriff has five days to issue the permit if all requirements are fulfilled, including a Criminal History record check from the FBI through the Nebraska State Patrol. This is not necessary during renewal of the permit. (Denial of permit can be appealed through the District Court of that county.)

The Nebraska State Patrol is also responsible for defining the minimum standards of training, based on guidelines established in the CHPA.

Incidentely, as cited in my earlier article:

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.

There are the usual precautions which we find in many such laws: No felons, etc. A couple of interesting clauses include "no history of violence" and the applicant must "not habitually be in an intoxicated or drugged condition".

There is no definition of the terminology, so one wonders what constitutes a "history of violence". Is this a subjective evaluation by the issuing Sheriff?

A permit holder must have in his possession both the permit and a drivers license (or some other ID, such as a military ID card) when carrying a handgun.

Moving into the vernacular:

Cops can take your gun away while they're talking to you. If you're carrying, you have to tell them. They have to give your gun back, except (for example) if they send you to the hospital and THEN they have to give you a receipt. Whether you get it back later depends on the circumstances.

There are places where a permit holder is not allowed to carry: jails and police stations, court buildings, polling places, bars, schools (school grounds, school busses, school activiies, etc.), athletic events, places of worship, emergency rooms, banks, political rallys, or " ...places or premises which have prohibited permit holders from carrying ... ". This last requires that the owner "has posted conspicuous notice" that handguns are not permitted, or has asked the permit holder to remove the handgun from the premises.

If you're a Domino's Driver, your boss can forbid you to carry in the deliver van.

You can't carry in a bar, while you're drinking (where-ever), or until you've completely sobered up again.

If you shoot somebody, you have to fill out a form or they'll throw you in the slammer and take your permit away from you.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RIGHT-TO-CARRY:
While researching this article, I found an excellent summary from a Nebraska Gun Club under the title "Why Does Nebraska Need A Right-To-Carry." You can read it here, though you'll have to scroll down a page.


THE CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Free Republic site posted an excellent article from the Lincoln Journal Star (January 14, 2006: Nate Jenkins) which summarized some of the opposition.

Big Cities might impose more stringent restrictions:

“If we want to do concealed weapons … let’s make sure the legislation communicates very clearly how we want the rest of the state to address concealed weapons,” said Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk.

Confusion currently exists about whether the bill would force cities to abide by the proposed law, because a state statute now allows cities to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons. Also, some city officials say they want to be able to set their own restrictions on concealed guns.

Sen. DiAnna Schimek argued that the confusion created “a huge concern” and that more public hearings should be held so city officials could provide input.

Why would anyone need to carry "concealed" in Nebraska?

The Nebraska State Patrol would be charged with devising training standards for safety courses that Combs said could last between one and three days, per session. Some state law enforcement agencies, including the State Patrol, have taken a neutral stance on the bill.

But at least one, the Police Officers Association of Nebraska, has opposed conceal-carry bills in the past.

“A person right now can legally carry a weapon,” as long as it is openly displayed, such as in a car seat or holster attached to a belt, said Lt. Mike Swain of the North Platte Police Department, president of the group.

“What are the benefits of having a gun nobody can see?”

Somebody openly displaying a gun is less likely to be attacked than one who conceals a weapon, he argued. Under current state law, weapons are considered illegally concealed if they are not where officers can view them but are accessible to their owners, according to Capt. Rhonda Lahm of the Nebraska State Patrol.

Anyone who truly believes that "open carry" is a safe, sane way to carry a defensive weapon should talk to Jason, the author of the blospot Fish Or Man. This is a blogger who was arrested in 2004 for carrying a loaded weapon openly in his car. When he was stopped for a traffic offense in his home state of Washington, the traffic cop became nervous when he spotted the loaded weapon. A series of escalating confrontations resulted in arrest, confiscation and trial. Over a year later, many tears from his poor wife and thousands of dollars poorer (I still don't know if he got his pistol back), Jason finally won MOST of his appeals.

It's not clear to me even yet if all the charges against Jason have been resolved, but one thing IS clear: open carry may help you defend yourself against predatory criminals, but it won't protect you against predatory cops.

If you open carry and have an encounter with the police, chances are good that they will automatically assume that you are 'up to no good' and the situation will immediately turn confrontational. If you insist upon your right to open-carry, expect escalation and expect that you will be arrested adn charged with (if nothing better comes to mind) "resisting arrest".

By the way, the link (above) is to the origina blogpost written on her husband's blogsite by Jason's wife, the day after her husband was arrested. The title is "I Am Finished". It will break your heart to read it. It is a sad, tearful story.

Washington State will issue you a "right to carry" permit. Jason just didn't see any reason why he should give money to the State, an have his name entered on a list of "people who have guns", when the Second Amendment (and Washington State Law) allowed him to carry "openly".

He now understands why. It's not an easy story to read; or to follow, if you have the time to track through the many episodes of arrest, imprisonment, bail, hearings, lawyers fees, trials and decisions on the various charges brought against him. But it certainly provides and excellent response to the question “What are the benefits of having a gun nobody can see?”

Answer: it provides protection against both law-breakers and law-enforcement.

Opinions:
Some time before LB 454 was passed, The Omaha City Weekly published an opinion article which contained all of the predictable cavaets. If you're interested, you should go read the whole thing. It's a regurgistation of all the fearful justification to deny honest citizens their right to defend themselves.

There are a few notable sound bites:

An armed society is a polite society, after all. Or so we’re told

Not everyone agrees with Combs’ view of concealed handguns. Nebraska City Police Chief Bill Muldoon raised concerns that family members are more likely than intruders to be harmed by guns in the home. He also was concerned that the additional gun-safety training LB 454 would require the State Patrol to perform for permit applicants would overburden an already-taxed State Patrol system.

Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha also opposes LB 454. In a style all his own, Chambers has proposed an amendment to LB 454 that would punish persons who violate the provisions of their concealed-carry license by having them taken into custody where their “trigger finger shall be shot off by Nebraska State Senator Jeanne M. Combs using a pistol of her choice ... without the benefit of any type of anesthesia other than flavored malt liquor.”

Seriously, that’s the amendment on the floor of the Unicameral. Further debate would be required on the amount of malt liquor that could be used, or the flavors that would be permissible under Chambers’ proposal.

Muldoon is a politicop parroting the old "43% more likely" argument which has long been discredited.

Chambers is a politician and an idiot (but then, I repeat myself).

And ...

Any discussion about gun control legislation really should start with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Keep in mind, at the time the Second Amendment was enacted, the United States had a very small standing army. The defense of the nation was left to militias, self-organized groups of men who assembled when the need arose. But clear within the language of the Second Amendment is the concept of a “well regulated militia,” meaning that the ability to wield a firearm had to be subject to the rules of the government.

The author of that article brings up the "history of violence" and "habitually ... drunken" issues, which reflects well on his careful reading of the bill. He recognizes that these are controversial points.

Unfortunately, he finishes with:

Really, it comes down to this question. Who are you more afraid of, the criminal who uses a gun to take your money, or the guy in the car next to you who has been pushed to the limit and uses you to take out his frustration against the world? Which of those two threats do you think is more likely to touch your life?

Guns do many things, and that includes escalating a confrontation into a life and death situation. It is an inescapable fact that in Europe, private gun ownership is a tiny fraction of what it is in the United States, and yet the violent crime rate in Europe (as well as the amount of accidental gun deaths) is far less than in the United States.

An armed society may be a polite society, but that is because it is a frightened society. I think there’s enough fear in this world. I believe that the marginal benefit of being able to outdraw a criminal in a shootout is overshadowed by the risk of each day-to-day confrontation escalating into a shooting. Permitting private citizens to carry concealed handguns is either a failure of our society to provide basic security or a pandering to the baser Darwinian survival instincts of people. For all our sakes, let’s pray LB 454 is the latter.

Fortunately, there are less fearful heads than his in Nebraska. Not everyone has so little confidence in the essential good sense of "people". Again, it's to his credit that he recognizes "the failure of our society to provide basic security", but he doesn't envision any better solution to the problem of crime and violence but that a "frightened society" should stand around like cattle waiting for the slaughterhouse-man.

If he thinks that the police are going to prevent violence, he would be better off hoping that the law is changes so that the Domino's Pizza Driver can carry 'on the job'. They have a much better response time.

TWO MORE STATES TO GO:
Illinois and Wisconsin still don't have concealed carry laws.

The Wisconsin "Legislatie Reference Bureau" posted an article about attempts to enter a concealed carry in Wisconson.

In 2003, SB 214 was passed by the State Legislature and subsequently vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle in early November, 2003. I don't know the current status of this movement, but the PDF article notes that "Missouri's legislature overrode his (Governor Bob Holden) veto in September 2003 making making Missouri the 45th state to legalize the carrying of a concealed weapon."

Wisconsin is on track, and not really far behind schedule. It may even be inevitable that Wisconsin will pass RKBA legislation in the near future.

There's still hope for Illinois.

I hope to bring you good news of these two final 'hold-out" states in the near future.

Nebraska Joins RKBA America!

JournalStar.com

After ten years of effort, Nebraska citizens finally impose their will over that of recalcitrant politicians and "Municipality Liberals" ... a "Right to Carry" bill has been passed, and it will soon be legal to carry a concealed weapon in the Great State of Nebraska!

Coming only a week after Kansas passed a similar law which recognizes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Nebraska law is perhaps not all that Nebraskans would want. But it opens the door to individual freedoms, and that's worth a decade of struggle.

Here's the full text of the Lincoln, Nebraska "Journal Star" article:

Concealed-carry adopted
By NATE JENKINS / Lincoln Journal Star

Next year, roughly 20,000 Nebraskans may trade their pepper spray and knives for Rugers and live ammo. Ending a 10-year effort, the Legislature on Thursday passed a law giving law-abiding Nebraskans the right to carry concealed handguns.

“It’s been a long fight,” said Sen. Jeanne Combs of Milligan.

Combs, a shoot-from-the-hip speaker and member of the National Rifle Association who led the fight for the bill, stared at the big board on the floor of the Legislature as votes to break a filibuster piled up.

When the tally hit 33, it was clear Nebraska would soon change its status as one of just a few states that prohibit concealed guns.

“I think it gives the people who’ve been victims of crime at least an alternative,” she said later.

The bill goes to Gov. Dave Heineman, who has said he would sign it.

Senators who have opposed the legislation fought it until the final vote, forcing the filibuster-breaker.

“There is no justification for it which would be considered rational,” said Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha. “Nebraska is not engulfed in a crime wave.”

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.


Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney questioned why the “safest people in the safest place on Earth” — Nebraska — need to carry concealed guns.

Supporters were mostly quiet, content to let opponents take their last shots at the bill and allow Combs to answer their questions.

She gave varying answers to a question that especially interested senators and is expected to interest city leaders as the law’s January start date approaches: Will it prevent cities from passing their own ordinances banning concealed handguns?

“As I understand the bill, it is preemptive” and would prohibit cities from overriding state law, Combs said, answering a question from Chambers.

Earlier this month, Combs suggested it may not prevent cities from banning concealed guns.

After the vote Thursday, Combs said she was “not an attorney” and wasn’t sure what the effect of the law will be in cities across the state.

“It remains to be seen,” she said. “My intent was not to have a checkerboard of laws.”

Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln pointed out an apparent discrepancy between what Combs told Chambers and what the bill seems to spell out.

“I think it says right here in your own bill that indeed they have that authority” to pass their own anti-conceal-carry laws and override state law, Schimek said.

None of the 38 states with similar legislation allow cities to opt out of state law, said Keith Wood, an NRA lobbyist who has pushed for this bill and is familiar with conceal-carry bills.

But Nebraska’s bill is different, he has said, because he believes it does allow cities to ban concealed weapons.

Lincoln Mayor Coleen Seng and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey wrote letters to the Legislature last month expressing opposition to the bill.

Lincoln officials are considering their next move, said Seng aide Rick Hoppe.

“The mayor wants to take time to review the city’s options before making a decision,” he said.

Without widespread city bans, the State Patrol has estimated 19,500 Nebraskans would apply for permits next year, when the law goes into effect. And about 5,000 would apply annually after that.

Applicants will have to pass background checks and meet other criteria to obtain the $100 permits, which will have to be renewed every five years.

Earlier news reports suggests that "Preemption" -- legally restricting the ability of individual municipalities to pass more restrictive laws than the rights granted by the state -- may have been a significant stumbling block to passage of this law. The final text of the bill is not yet available on the internet, so this question remains unanswered. However, there are passages in the Nebraska Constitution which might seem to support preemption.

For example, this passage from Gunscribe (and cited in an earlier article):

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Source:
Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (1875);
Amended 1988, Initiative Measure No. 403

The political opposition to passage of this bill was evident even after passage of the bill, as the Journal Star reporting demonstrates:

“There is no justification for it which would be considered rational,” said Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha. “Nebraska is not engulfed in a crime wave.”

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.

Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney questioned why the “safest people in the safest place on Earth” — Nebraska — need to carry concealed guns.

Still, this is a significant advance in the 2nd Amendment Movement, and one which reduces the right-to-carry ratio from 47-to-3 to 48-to-2.

Only Illinois and Wisconsin have yet to pass such self-defense legislation.

As of this writing, the passage of this bill has not yet been mentioned by the Main Stream Media.

However, Nebraska citizens are virtually dancing in the streets over this acknowledgement of their civil rights.

The CCW Nebraska Forum members are jubilant, yet restrained as they attempt to sort out the implications of the bill as enacted into law.

As Forum Member JoeMerchant24 states:

We did it!

---

FINAL READING:

Aye 33

Nay 12

NV 3

We win! We win! Thank God almighty we win at last!

Welcome to a Blue State!

However, CMZNEB is more restrained, as he cautions:

Nobody is clear on the preemption. Not even the Legislators who just passed the bill.

With only Illinois and Wisconsin left......... I wish you guys the best of luck. Keep pushing your elected officials, keep it positive, and you will succeed.

And member jednp cautions:

Municipalities will have the right to ban it. I live in Omaha and have been told that they will keep their current ban in effect, and change their law any if needed to keep current. Some city council members are going to sponsor a bill to allow it in Omaha, but I was told it will take a strong 5 person vote because the mayor will veto it, and lots of organizations in the city are against it. Only hope Omaha has, or any other city which bans it is to get the law ammended in the next year or so to make it so municipalities cannot ban it.

Questions, yes. The problem with 'early returns' is that the nigling details remain to be resolved. It's perhaps unwise to accept a new law as the answer to all of your dreams. When you turn your back on a problem, remember where it's going to bite you.

But still, in the words of malkore:

today is a good day.

(H/T: John Hurd, of "The Unofficial IPSC List")

Norm and the White Tape

At a recent IPSC match, Oregon's newest Master Open Class shooter gets a proper razzing from his friends.

IPSC Shooting Videos & IPSC Reloading Data

I subscribe to a service (StatsCounter) which provides me with information about the people who visit this website. I've talked about the statistics before, but one which provides the most useful information is "Recent KeywordActivity". This is a log of all the keyword searches which brought people to this website. For example, if you did a GOOGLE search on "Kalifornia von number", you would be directed to this url:
Yes, it even works when your search is in German.

This helps me to determine when I'm writing about something somebody wants to read. If they submit a search, and it leads them to an article on my website which provides the information for which they are searching, everybody is satisfied with the results.

Unfortunately, some of the search results are ... unsatisfying.

The people who are doing the searches are looking for specific information, and at this website they find only a reference to the information, or else they don't find as much of what they are looking for as I may have attempted to provide' elsewhere'.

The purpose of this is to provide links to the actual information you're searching for.

Two of the most common Searches-Gone-Wrong are IPSC SHOOTING VIDEOS, or some variation, and almost anything about reloading data.

IPSC VIDEOS, IPSC MOVIES:
The first search, some combination of "IPSC" and "SHOOTING" and "VIDEO" or "MOVIE", is obviously looking for real videos of IPSC shooting competition. Depending upon the actual verbiage used in the keyword search, you may be directed to an article which provides a few pictures, perhaps links to three or four videos, but you have to be determined to mine the website if you want more than a few movies.

If you want to see a LOT of movies, or videos, which show people shooting IPSC stages, you have to look over to the right. Carelessly hidden under the archive of most recent articles, under the general heading GEEK LINKS, you'll find "Jerry The Geek's Video Shooting Gallery".


If you click on that link, you will find over a hundred videos mixed in with over a thousand still photos. Every movie (and many of the stills) I've linked to in this blog can be found at that link ... and a lot more, besides.

Go there and you will find an index of a large number of matches. Those which contain videos will have the word 'video' in the description. When you look at each album, the entries which have the image of a movie camera are videos. They're usually "WMV" format, which means that the movie has been edited and reformatted from the original MPG format (four to 25 megabytes each) to the WMV format, which is usually two to four megabytes, sometimes as much as eight megabytes, and therefore they download faster.

(Note: these files aren't exactly 'compressed'. Instead, the pixle count per inch is changed; higher to lower. That means the visual quality of the WMV version of a video is not as good as the original MPG version. I generally try to avoid lowering the quality so much that the video isn't viewable, and unless you compare the original and the reformatted videos you may not even notice the difference. On some of them, you will; these are usually the videos which are so long that it would require a file so large that download time would be 'considerable', even with a high-speed internet connection. As a service to you, the viewer, I try to achieve a reasonable balance between video quality and download time. I'm not always successful, but I do try.)

Many of the movies so edited include titles and clues on what points of interest they feature, and some of the (especially, but not exclusively, those of the 2005 Croc Match) have music to help you get into the mood for the video.

Want to take your OWN videos?
Good idea! If I'm not shooting IPSC, I can enjoy taking pictures and videos, editing them, and posting them to my own photo gallery. If you don't have your own photo gallery, may I suggest YouTube. They have a 'group' of people who provide videos of IPSC competition which you may find interesting, and if you join (membership is free), you can post your videos there. (Note: these files are DRASTICALLY reformatted for a very fast download time. The quality of the videos are not always satisfactory, but I have often used YOUTUBE to provide fast, direct links from my blog to the video. Anything I post on the blog using YOUTUBE is available in higher-quality versions on my Video Gallery.)

Warning: not everybody depicted in these videos is an entirely safe shooter, and you may see examples of unsafe gunhandling. Do not attempt to emulate these practices. My own videos include people who are "DQ'd" for unsafe gunhandling, as well as a few who perhaps should have been match-disqualified, but weren't. Learn from the mistakes of others, and remember that nobody was actually injured during the filming. It doesn't mean that someone could not have been injured. It just means that Someone looks out for drunks, children and fools ... sometimes.


Reloading Data:
Those searches which seem to be looking for reloading statistics -- powder type, powder weight, bullet make/shape/weight, primer, over-all length, etc -- often end up on the page where I talked about the Dillon XL650 press. There's a lot of good information there, but it's all anecdotal. I very carefully have resisted the urge to discuss the loads I use, because I don't choose to be responsible for providing reloading information which might be misinterpreted or misused. Sure, reloading data can be safely provided if sufficient warnings and supplementary data are provided, but I just don't have the energy or desire to become a source of reloading data.

Enter Jeff Maass.

Jeff has a long-established website which deals specifically with reloading data for IPSC competition, including the IPSC-specific calibers of .40 S&W, 9x21, and .38 Super.

There, Jeff takes the time to talk about safety issues and precautions, as well as providing (with suitable warnings) actual loads used by actual IPSC competitors. He describes the guns for which the competitors have used these loads, too, so if you plan to load for a single-stack Limited 10 pistol, you won't be tempted to use a load which is probably only safe in an Open Gun. (eg: compensated, which uses MUCH heavier loads of slow-burning powder, designed to make the compensator 'work' by generating excess gasses to vent through the compensator ports.)

I've linked to Jeff over there in the sidebar, under "IPSC Resources I Recommend". Look for "Maass' IPSC Resources", which not only includes reloading information but also stage designs.

Jeff has been shooting IPSC, and collecting IPSC load data, for many years. I trust his judgement, and use his reloading data with confidence because I always, always, follow his advice to start at least 10% under the cited powder charge and work the load UP using a chronograph to determine whether the load is generating excessive velocity -- and therefore, probably excessive pressure -- in the gun for which I am developing the load.

If you wish to load for 'other' calibers, may I suggest the excellent reloading page of MD Smith. I've used his loading data for 9mm and .45acp and 10mm, as well as .22-250 and .30-06 rifles. (Unfortunately, he doesn't have loading data for my favorite rifle, the venerable wildcat .25-06 although he DOES include data for the somewhat-similar .270 Remington Rifle.)

Jeff's webpage includes this link, as well as links to a large number of other ('powder and bullet manufacturers') reloading pages. I use them; you may, too.

They usually include warnings about using reloading data wisely, carefully, safely. That is, always make sure your firearm is safe to shoot, and never use the maximum cited powder charge in your first attempt in your firearm, and be sure to use only the reloading information cited for the specific poweder and bullet weight and bullet shape and bullet manufacturer as a reliable guide.

Obviously, reloading ammunition is something that you only want to attempt if you are experienced and knowledgeable. If you are not, don't attempt it on your own. Instead, find someone whose experience and knowledge you absolutely know to be reliable and extensive, and get that person to help you get started.

Don't know anybody that fits that description? Then you need to get out to the range more, and meet more people.

Until then, buy commercially loaded ammunition, and spend part of your range time meeting new people.

Basic IPSC advice for new shooters

I HAVE BEEN WATCHING a couple of new shooters try their hand at IPSC competition since sometime last year, with special interest.

I like to meet new people at the range, enjoy getting to know them, and after twenty-some years of experience at IPSC competition I still can appreciate the struggle to learn how to shoot a pistol safely, accurately, and quickly.

Those three factors are a difficult combination to achieve, and after twenty years of trying I'm still struggling. Because I'm getting older and slower, and I just don't have the talent, I probably won't move up to a higher class. However, I know many of the things that need to be known to be competitive, and even if I can't apply them beyond a certain level I flatter myself that I can share the basics with new shooters and perhaps help them progress more rapidly than I have.

I am especially interested in these two new shooters because they are shooting Revolvers.

Six shots, slow reloads.

This is perhaps the most challenging equipment choices in IPSC; and because it just feels so good to do well with 'difficult' equipment, perhaps the most rewarding.

I have no use for a revolver, beyond certain applications for which I am told (but do not believe) they were not originally designed: bud vase, door stop, hammer. I shot a revolver in IPSC competition one time, in a winter concealed-carry match, and it was an embarassing, frustrating experience. The only good part of it was that I won my division. I was the only fool who showed up with a revolver on that day.

Now these two new fools are showing up with six-shot revolvers, to shoot IPSC!

While I admire their gritty determination, I recognize that they rightly belong in a "Special Needs" group. Nice guys, a little soft in the head, and they already know that they are bound to be frustrated when they watch people using pistols with magazines so jam-packed with ammunition that they rarely have to reload during a course of fire, except for the occasional Classifier stage.

Consequently, even though my knowledge of revolver shooting is nil I'm unable to resist giving them some advice from time to time. When they ask for it. (Or when they can be backed into a convenient corner.)

Because most of that advice is equally applicable to any new shooter, I am going to modify it slightly and post it here for the dubious benefit of anyone who is so desperate for coaching that he or she will take advice from an admitted Geek:

I carry a first aid kit in my range bag. When the inevitable scrape or cut occurs, you are entirely welcome to first aid and advice, both of which are free but not of equal value.

The bandage is immediately beneficial.

The advice, however, is of no use until you figure things out for yourself. Then a little Aha-bell goes off in your head, and you realize "Aha! So that's what they were talking about!" It helps to have been told what to do and how to do it.

Even if you think you are dismissing the free advice; even if you resent the implication that you're not a naturally excellent shooter; even if you're consciously allowing the Old Poop to pontificate because you're too polite to cut him off cold -- somebody needs to tell you these things so you'll know when you've re-invented a useful tool

Shoot Accurately:
After Safety, at this stage of your development, accuracy is the most important thing.

It's even more important for revolver shooters, because when you have to make up a missed shot your whole game plan goes out the window. It takes something like five hundredths of a second longer to make *sure* you have a good sight picture and trigger control. Compared with an extra two-second reload, that's nothing. People who are shooting pistols usually have an edge, because they can often afford a miss or two before they have to reload. Still, you can count on a quarter of a second to several seconds lost because you have to (a) realize you have missed, (b) decide whether you should make it up, and (c) take the extra shot. Since you are aware that you are burning stage time, you'll probably hurry the make-up shot and have to take another one.

Missing is not good. Avoid it.

The speed will come, but usually not today unless you are unusually gifted.

You're not unusally gifted. You can shoot accurately, but you think you can shoot accurately AND quickly AND safely.

You can't. But you will. Trust me on this point.

Focus on your shooting.
You can't afford to just wing shots downrange in pedal-to-the-metal hopes of connecting with the target. You have to get your head into the shooting. Brian Enos calls it "focus". You don't CONCENTRATE on your shooting, because then you start to over-think it. Thinking while you're shooting a stage just tenses up your muscles and reduces the natural flow.

You probably already know how to make the shot. You think you have to do it quickly, so you push yourself to shoot quick. That's how you get into trouble, because you have to make up missed shots.

Your job isn't to push yourself to shoot quickly; your job is to just follow along and watch things happen. Call your shots, be aware of where the sight is when the shot breaks. That way, you don't have to listen the [clink!] when you hit that little plate, you just know whether you were on-target when you took the shot, and can immediately either make up the shot or move on to the next target.

Ron Avery refers to it as "see what you have to see" because every shooting challenge is different and it's not just the sight/target relationship. It's an awareness of everything that's going on, with yourself and the gun and the targets and movement and props and the RO and bystanders. Most important, it's focusing on the target you're currently engaging, not worrying about the target you just finished and not hurrying to get to the next target. Focus on THIS target, do what you came here to do, and then move on to the next action ... index to the next target, move to the next shooting position, reload, whatever it is.

Never look back.
It's hard not to worry about a mistake you may have made. The solution is not to make the mistakes. (Carpenters call this the "Measure twice, cut once" rule.) If you missed the target, go ahead and make it up. Take the extra shot immediately, without thought or self-doubt.

If you find that you move your attention from the target you should be shooting to the target you just left, you're wasting time and you're breaking your focus. You called your shot, you were right in your evaluation. No second thoughts. You may occasionally be wrong, but as you gain experience you'll be right more often than not and you WILL get your hits and you will NOT waste time and ammunition on 'insurance shots'.

Try to shoot every target in the A-zone, but don't try to make up a C-zone or D-zone hit. It isn't worth the time, and you may need that round in the next few seconds anyway. Don't worry about it.

Why are you spending your weekends on the range, anyway?
When you put it all together, and it all works, you get that occasional stage where you did everything perfectly and it's like an out-of-body experience. We all say we like to shoot, and we like the company and the fresh air and the exercise and the competition. That's not really why we keep showing up at the rock quarry.

We're there for the endorphin rush.

It's not at all like the effects of adrenaline caused by knowing that everybody is watching you, and being self-conscious. That's just nerves, and what the effect you're seeking is the complete opposite. It's being in The Zone and at complete peace. You marvel at how well things happen, but you don't think about them or try to make it happen.

Sometimes, when you get very close to The Zone, you notice little things. The most rewarding thing to notice is the "Hey, I can shoot this faster" moment, so you do, and it works just as well with absolutely no effort at all. It just takes a little nudge, like shifting from second gear into high gear. You're not pushing yourself to rush, you're just allowing yourself to move into a different rhythm.

It's all natural. It's not forced. You can't make yourself shoot faster, and maintain an acceptable degree of accuracy. You just let it happen, and when you're really ready you know it.

"You can't miss fast enough to win."
Whatever it takes to shoot accurately, do that.

Usually, it'll take a little more time than you would wish to spend, because you're aware of the passage of time. You can't afford to worry about anything while you're shooting, because that's a distraction and distractions make you lose your focus.

Don't try to save time by shooting fast.
You can save time by learning to reload quickly, which is something you practice at home while you're dry-firing.

(Standard precautions about dry-firing apply: triple-check that you have an unloaded gun, no ammunition in the same room with the gun, always put your aiming point on a wall that you can't shoot through even if you screw up the first two precautions, never point a gun at a person even if the gun is unloaded, etc.)

When you're shooting a stage, you can save time by saving steps. Learn to reload on the move. Keep track of how much ammunition you have left in the gun; pre-plan WHERE you will reload, and if you're using a limited-roundcount gun you can expect that every time you're moving, you're reloading.

You'll eventually figure out all of this for yourself, and it won't be real to you until you re-invent the wheel.

But remember, you heard it here first.

Now, go out there and win one for The Geek.

But remember, it's only a game.

Kansas Right-to-Carry Bill Passes!

NRA-ILA :: Releases

The Kansas Legislature today passed a Right-To-Carry bill over the veto of its governor.

Here's the text of the NRA announcement:

House and Senate Override
Governor Sebelius' Veto:
Kansas Passes Right-to-Carry

Thursday, March 23, 2006

(Fairfax, VA) – Both the Kansas State Senate and House of Representatives voted to override Governor Sebelius’ veto of the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed Right-to-Carry legislation, Senate Bill 418, “The Personal and Family Protection Act.”

“After 12 years, it took a collective, bi-partisan effort to win this fight. Kansas now joins 46 other states who enjoy some form of Right-to-Carry,” NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox declared.

The Kansas State Senate voted 30 to 10 to override Governor Sebelius’ veto of the Right-to-Carry legislation. Less than a day later, the Kansas House of Representative voted 91-33 to sustain the override.

Cox continued, “We want to recognize the steadfast support of several state leaders. Without their hard work, Kansans would still be deprived of this valuable law. Senator Phil Journey, Representative Candy Ruff, and Representative Gary Hayzlett worked tirelessly on this measure and we thank them.”

Kansas becomes the 47th state with some form of Right-to-Carry. There are now three states that do not allow any form of Right-to-Carry; Nebraska, Illinois and Wisconsin have yet to pass such self-defense legislation.

“As always, we appreciate the commitment and participation of our members in Kansas for helping pass this legislation and helping override the Governor’s veto of this self-defense law,” concluded Cox.

It took them 16 years, but they won the final battle against politicians, big-city kleptocrats, and liberal nanny-staters. Good for you, Jayhawkers!

That's 47 down, three to go.

---

On January Eighth of this year I talked about the efforts to effect a similar Second Amendment drive in Nebraska.

A local blogger, Gunscribe, has been actively campaigning to persuade his state legislature to pass LB 454, which would allow fellow citizens the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. I had asked him to keep me informed, but unfortunately events in his personal life didn't permit him time to maintain correspondance. However, he has been covering the RKBA issue on his blog and that may be enough to give us an outline of the issues.


Don't Take Your Guns To Town.
Essentially the state legislature doesn't want to pass it.

And they're getting some support from the "municipalities", which want an 'opt out' clause.

In what may be the stumbling block between the citizens of Nebraska and the proposed enactment of this bill, the "municipalities" (Omaha and Lincoln, primarily) want to retain the 'right' to impose local ordinances which will effectively cancel the provisions of the state law.

Gunscribe summarized the arguments pro and con. As far as the 'home rule' provisions which the big-city politicos espouse, it's "States' Rights" vs "Federal Law" all over again, except that the States Rights are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

According to Gunscribe:

The crutch that these Municipalities lean on for enactment of these unconstitutional ordinances is their supposed "Home Rule Authority".
... Under "Home Rule Authority" a Political Subdivision cannot enact an ordinaces [sic] that are repugnant to or inconsistant with the Constitution.

Purpose of home rule charter provisions of Constitution is
to render cities as nearly independent as possible of state
legislation, subject to the general public policy of the state. State
ex rel. Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97, 288 N.W. 499 (1939)

[Emphasis added by The Geek.]

Further, the Constitution of the State of Nebraska seems to specifically support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Source:
Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (1875);
Amended 1988, Initiative Measure No. 403

The judicial precedent for supporting a Right-To-Carry measure in Nebraska seems to be in place. Special interests have apparently accepted that they can't stop the bill. Now they're focusing on "Damage Control", in an attempt to define 'no-fly zones' where their own little feifdom can still impose a modicum of control over the rights of their citizens.

It's frustrating. Maddening. Still, it's a positive note, which presages that all parties have accepted the inevitable.

Consider it in light of the old joke about the man who asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. When she admits that this might be possible, he asks if she would sleep with him for twenty dollars.

"Why, of course not!" she retorts. "What kind of girl do you think I am?"

"Madam", he replies, "We have already established that. What we are doing now is merely haggling over the price."

Geeks with Guns

I can't say I never appreciated Day By Day, by Chris Muir, because my affection is obvious since his daily 'toon is loaded at the bottom of this blog every day. It's a service he provides for free, and it makes it easy for me to pay daily homage to his genius.

Of course, I'm not the only blogger who appreciates Muir; many of us who are predominantly gun-bloggers feature his daily 'toon. It's probably because if you like guns you're probably conservative, and DBD is certainly a Conservative forum.

You can go to Muir's website (see the link above, or click on the cartoon at the bottom of this page) to get the background of the four main characters: Damon, Sam, Zed and Jan. Or you can ignore that, and just enjoy their daily give-and-take.

If I was enamored of the Blogger-Tests, I would start one asking "What is your favorite Day By Day Character", but it would probably be either x-gen Jan or Baby Boomer Sam - Muir has a talent for celebrating feminine pulchritude.

The character I most closely identify with? No contest. Zed is an aging male Geek, gotta be the hero in my book.

The smartest character? Damon, who gets (almost) all of the very best lines, week to week.

The most interesting (and only) Liberal among the four main characters is Jan, who generally serves as a foil for the conservative messages Muir presents. Muir has endowed her with a sense of humor, which not only keeps the character likeable but makes me doubt her credentials as a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party. Well, I guess there must be at least ONE Dem with a sense of humor. Wouldn't you know she would be a regular in a Conservative Cartoon.

At the risk of sounding like a South Park fan: Favorite episodes are a possible source of diverse opinion. There's the time when Sam and Zed were explaining CCW to Jan. This winter, Sam bought Zed a shotgun for Christmas. Then Zed bought Sam a beautiful gown, took her to a ball where Bill and Hillary were guests of honor, and punched out Bill for making a move at Sam.

That Zed is a real Party Animal, and there's just another reason why he's my hero. Who wouldn't like a guy who fulfills so many of my own post-adolescent fantasies?

Usually, Muir dances around the RKBA/shooting issues. Not that he doesn't address them, but they are merged into larger themes. This week, he has Sam and Zed going to the range and inviting Damon and Jan as their guests. Nice of Zed and Sam, but this frightens Jan.



When they meet at the range, Jan is surprised that Sam is there for the joy of shooting, for not adopting the role-playing costumes she might wear -- using pistol-shooting as an excuse.



Sam then convinces Jan to try shooting a gun, in an attempt to show her that guns aren't ugly, they're fun.

Damon and Zed appreciate Sam's efforts to introduce Jan to the joys of shooting, and Jan's willingness to try something new even though Jan is dubious.

Damon -- has regrets.



_______________________________________________

You're probably wondering why I'm spending so much time picking my way through a series of cartoons that you could have read for yourself and sorted out the inherent message without this superfluous commentary.

I just wanted to draw your attention to the idea that, if you are a shooter, you can do yourself and the world a favor by taking a non-shooting friend to the range. Teach them the basic principles of gun safety, coach them, and let them find out for themselves the shooters are real people. We're not a bunch of nitwits who are acting out a fantasy role as we sit on the tailgate of our pickup and drink beer. We're safe and responsible, and that's the kind of people we want to attract to our sport.

Some people -- those who have never tried it -- think that shooting is, in fact, a solitary vice .

Those of us regularly participate in shooting sports, though, consider it a pleasurable excuse to spend a nice day with congenial company, sharing a social activity.

Several Gun Bloggers make an open invitation to ANY person who has never gone shooting, but would like to try it, to meet them at a range. The blogger offers to provide access to the range, firearms, ammunition, safe & appropriate targets, safety equipment ("eyes and ears"), and instruction.

Among bloggers on my "links to me" blogroll who make this offer are Captain of a Crew of One, One In A Row and The Smallest Minority, (I'm sure there are others in my blogroll who make this offer, I've only included one small section as a representative sample.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, two out of three of these folks are in Arizona. I am unsurprised because Arizona remains a bastion of RKBA enthusiasm. Captain of a Crew of One is in Virginia, and I make no assumptions although I do point out the large number of Virginians who were active participants in the American Revolution and signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

Why don't I make a similar offer?

Perhaps I'm not as courageous as these other bloggers. Shooters tend to be conservative (I believe I may have mentioned this observation before) and I am well-qualified to be counted in this personality group. I tend to choose my friends very carefully, and I would like to know something of the character of people I take to the range before I arm them.

This isn't a negative reflection on those who DO have the courage to offer an open invitation to a day on the range.

How about you? You're a shooter. When is the last time you took some one to the range who wasn't already a shooter? I have taken a few friends to the range, and we left friends, too. We always enjoyed the day, and while they haven't all ended up with the same enthusiasm for shooting that I have -- I believe every person I took shooting had some appreciation for the shooting sports as a safe, enjoyable activity.

You might consider taking a friend to the range this week.

Wet t-shirts are not generally recommended.


UPDATE: 23 March, 2006

Geekthanks to the Hobo Brasser for pointing out that I had been referring to "Zed" as "Zeke". I have no idea why I did this, but it certainly proves that I need an editor. I've corrected the mistake.