Red's Trading Post: Len Savage: "Duck Hunters and Sportsman, You're the next target of the ATF!"

While we've been distracted by the way the ATF, under the leadership of Michael Sullivan, has fixed its prosecutorial attention on the Akins Accelerator, the ATF has found the time to rule on the definition of a 'machine gun'.

Ryan Horsley has it here at Red's Trading Post.


I recall the 2001 Area 1 USPSA Tournament in Washington, which I attended with an STI Edge which I received from my then gunsmith AT THE MATCH. I had given it to him to perform some minor maintenance, including a thorough cleaning. He had completely disassembled the pistol, cleaned and lubricated everything ... but I had neglected to give him the magazines and some ammunition to test it. Since the pistol is in 10mm, which nobody except for The Geek used for Practical Shooting competition, he had been unable to test the re-assembled pistol.

The first time I shot it was in Stage 1 of the match, at which the pistol doubled (fired multiple shots when the trigger was pulled.) I was ejected from the stage, given a zero score, and my gunsmith and I spent the next 40 minutes at a safety table ... where we discovered that he had inserted the sear spring ('3-finger spring') incorrectly.

He put it together again, this time correctly, and we visited the Function-Test bay a couple of times until we were sure it was right.

In the actual event, the Match Director discovered that my score sheet for Stage 1 had been filled out wrong .. among other things, I had never signed it and they hadn't entered the time or the score (zero), so I was required to reshoot the stage. As usual, I didn't impress anyone, but my stage score was a lot better than ZERO so I was happy, all things considered.

Here's the down side:

Under the new BATFE ruling, the fact that my pistol actually shot more than one round with a single trigger-pull, ATF considers it a machine gun. There are no accommodations for malfunctions.

There are several malfunctions which can cause a semi-automatic pistol to 'double', including a worn sear ... which may be caused by poor maintenance, an overly enthusiastic trigger job, or normal wear on a firearm which has been used so much that he metal on the sear face erodes. (I've had that happen when a relatively new sear was found to have suffered from a 'manufacturing defect', and the manufacturer cheerfully replaced the deficient part with abject apologies.)

And again, if a sear spring is incorrectly installed, the pistol will double even though that is not the design intent.

Consider this scenario:
You're at a USPSA match, you're your own gunsmith, and you put the gun together 'wrong' after a detail cleaning. You start to shoot the stage, and your gun doubles. This is an 'unsafe firearm' according to USPSA rules, and you are required to (a) stop shooting immediately, and (b) not continue shooting until you repair the firearm and have demonstrated that your pistol is safe to shoot.

Enter the ATF, perhaps (in this hypothetical scenario) a spectator at the match. The ATF agent observes the doubling, and confiscates your firearm. He takes it to an ATF lab, which tests it. (According to Horsley, there are not testing standards.) Your gun doubles during the tests.

MACHINEGUN!


You are then deemed to be in possession of an unlicensed machine gun. You may be prosecuted, fined, your firearm will almost certainly be confiscated ... and there is no defense.

Nor is there appeal, or oversight.

The engineering definition of 'screw' is "An inclined plane wrapped around a post".

The practical definition of 'screwed' is "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives".

You're screwed.

And until we can convince the American Federal Government to rein in this rogue bureaucracy, we're all screwed.
_______________________________________
Notes:
According to ATF Ruling 2006-2:

The definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act includes a part or parts that are designed [note #1] and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun. This language includes a device that, when activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.

ATF Rul. 2006-2
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been asked by several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire [note #2] of a semiautomatic firearm. These devices, when attached to a firearm, result in the firearm discharging more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. ATF has been asked whether these devices fall within the definition of machinegun under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As explained herein, these devices, once activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiate an automatic firing cycle which continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. Accordingly, these devices are properly classified as a part “designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun” and therefore machineguns under the NFA and GCA.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, defines the term “firearm” to include a machinegun. Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots [note #3], is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended [note #4], for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, defines machinegun identically to the NFA. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23).

***

Notes are included by the editor.

Note #1:

"... a part or parts that are designed [note #1] and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.

"This clause strongly suggests that malfunctioning parts may NOT define a 'machinegun', because they are not 'designed and intended' to '(convert) a weapon into a machinegun'.

Note #2:
This clause also supports the preceding argument. A malfunctioning part should not reasonably be interpreted as being:

' ... exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire [note #2] of a semiautomatic firearm".

Note #3:
The referenced phrase is different from the preceding quotes. Where the earlier quotes strongly speak to 'design' and 'intention', this phrase includes the separate clause 'shoots', which can easily be interpreted to include malfunctions.

' ...defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots [note #3], is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'

That is, whether the subject weapon has been 'designed to shoot' or 'can be readily restored to shoot' in a (full-auto) mode, if it DOES shoot more than one shot per trigger pull, it is a "machinegun" even if you don't want it to so function.

This verbiage is distinctly different from previous (and the following) clauses. We can only assume that this is the unfortunate clumsy verbiage which Michael Sullivan has embraced to justify his arbitrary and unilateral ruling which includes Malfunctions as justification for defining a 'machinegun'.


Note #4:
Again, we see that the rest of the fuling returns to the concept of 'design' and 'intention' in defining a machinegun;

The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended [note #4], for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun ...

.

Georgia HB915 & The NRA

Lonelymachines has an interesting article combining a couple of threads recently popular here ... new gun freedom legislation in Georgia and the NRA.

Essentially, he cautions us that HB915 hasn't yet passed, but has only been introduced. And he's mad as heck that the NRA isn't supporting that bill. In fact, he thinks the NRA isn't protecting its members as well as JPFO and other gun freedom organizations. Not only that but ... well, maybe you should just go read the whole thing.

On the other hand, Kim presents an even more confusing 'other take' on the situation vis-a-vis Georgia HB915 and the NRA.

And also here.

Don't these people talk to each other? And why not?

Georgia HB915 - Campus Carry Okay!

New legislation passed in Georgia today removes the restriction on carrying concealed firearms ( with a "CHL" license) on a University Campus.

SECTION 5.

Said article is further amended by revising paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, relating to carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on school property, as follows:

"(1) 'School safety zone' means in, on, or within 1,000 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary school, secondary school, or school board and used for elementary or secondary education and in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the campus of any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or institution of postsecondary education."

SAF Press Release :: CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT

SAF Press Release :: CA APPEALS COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF SAF LAWSUIT

For Immediate Release: 1/9/2008

In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

I'm not sure how reliable this announcement is, I caught the link on The War On Guns and I haven't followed it up yet.

(Possible geek link)

NRA link:

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

Bad Ideas ...

Leaving your handgun stuck under the couch cushions where your 5-year-old son can unwittingly bump into it .. and shoot himself in the leg.

Putting a loaded pistol under your 6-year-old daughter's pillow.

Putting your loaded shotgun (round chambered) shotgun in the back of the pickup with your excited dog ... where he can step on the safety AND the trigger.

Making up arguments against the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that ... as you are the District of Columbia, restrictions on 'states' do not apply to you, risking the response that if you aren't a state you ain't dick, dude.

Bragging on the Internet that you're going to travel from England to Afghanistan on a 'mission of revenge', and asking "Pray that I kill many, Brother. Revenge, revenge, revenge!"

Being the leader of the "Socialist Left" party in Norway, and proposing taxes on 'use of coastal waters' on the grounds that :

"Townships should demand to be paid for use of areas in the coastal zone... [t]here's a lot of pressure on use of the seas, and there's a need to regulate it. A tax can inspire the townships to improve coastal resources, because they'd get paid for it."

("They want to impose a new tax on use of coastal waters, a proposal that would put an additional tax burden on such core Norwegian businesses as seafood production and offshore operations.")

Wheeling your dead room-mate in a wheelchair in front of a check-cashing station and trying to cash his social security check at the same place where Dead Friend was personally known, on the grounds that "he's right out there, dude!" while a crowd (including a policeman) gathered about to comment on the obvious corpse.


Some days, you just have to wonder:

What were they thinking!

S&W 659 Assembly and Disassembly instructions

On November 22, 2006, I posted an article about assembly and dis-assembly of the S&W 659 (9mm pistol, 2nd generation S&W, stainless).

These instructions are generally applicable to all model 59 variations.

Thanks to reader MARK, I have been encouraged to finally post the still photos which demonstrate this process in detail. The individual photos are annotated with detailed instructions, which I hope will make this a more usable resource for Model 59 owners.

This link has been included in the original post.

If you are trying to use these pictures as a guide to field-stripping the model 59, and you have questions, please send your email to the address listed at the bottom of this page. I may not be able to answer your questions, but it's worth a shot. (Sorry!)

BTW, I no longer have possession of this pistol. My son is the proud recipient of the pistol, so I can't pull it out and tinker with it. The pistol, I mean.

UPDATE: January 10, 2008
I've just found that Gunworld has schematics of both the Model 59 and the Model 5906 ... both of which are closely related to the 659 and are probably of interest to most of you who found this article as a result of an Internet Search.

NRA - Supportive to individuals, or to 'groups'?

On December 17 I wrote an article titled "Registered Gun Owner", questioning whether I should feel 'comfortable' with my decision to (once again, for the fourth time) joining the National Rifle Association.

I received some comments to the effect that "it's about time", which I presumed should be construed as supportive.

Tonight I continued an established theme about protecting private ranges (and public ranges, for that matter) against the predations of developers and other vested interests which seem to find on conflict with their personal values when attempting to put Shooting Ranges out of business for the sole purpose of creating 'unclaimed property' for the development of residential properties ... and selling houses which they would build on this 'new' land.

One of the central themes in this business venture was whether the established ranges met 'industry standards'. For the purpose of the discussion, the 'industry standards' are the NRA Range Manual.

When I attempted to find a document which met the description of the "NRA Range Manual", I discovered that such a document was not readily referenced.

Bear with me, this gets complicated.

Since the "NRA Range Manual" was either unavailable online, or was 'out of print', I went to the source: The National Rifle Association.

When I attempted to contact the NRA in reference to this document, I found a link which proposed to allow me to request NRA publications. The hitch is, you have to be an NRA member to request this document. I joined the NRA on December 17, 2007. This is January 6, 2007, so that should not be a problem. Right?

Wrong.

Although the NRA debited my VISA card on December 18, 2007, as of today (January 6, 2008) I have not received my NRA member number. Therefore, the resources which may generally be considered available to a NRA member are not available to me.

I went to the NRA website and found an "ASK THE NRA" email address. I wrote to the NRA, pointed out their willingness to debit my account versus their (lack of) established mechanism which would allow me to use my NRA membership to access their resources.

To my surprise, the EMAIL sent to the "ASK THE NRA" email address was returned because the email address was 'not known'.

Working backwards through the involved issues:

• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is considered to be so non-supportive of vital Range Management Issues;
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is considered the definitive of Range Management;
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is not available through ANY source I can imagine, including (if it's a publication generally available to the public) through such sources as AMAZON.COM;
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA Range Manual is not available through the NRA;
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA doesn't have a convenient (or even an inconvenient) link to the NRA Range Manual ... which appears to be 'out of print';
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA can countenance the continued reference to a resource without documenting that it is either (a) not a legitimate NRA document, or (b) mentioning somewhere on its website that it is obsolete and should no longer be referenced, or (c) affirming that it is a 'work in progress ... please watch this space for notification when it is available for public distribution;
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA doesn't notify new members of their member number as soon as they have been determined to have paid their dues;
• I DON'T KNOW why the NRA requires member numbers (ID) before it performs basic search functions to identify official documents which arguably SHOULD be available to anybody, regardless of member status.

It's not difficult so see why I am disappointed by the 'benefits' accruing to my new-found member status.

I've written to the NRA for clarification and asked for their assistance in my search. But I have to say that I am not encouraged by the results so far. That their published links to "WRITE TO THE NRA" return "NOT FOUND" messages is indicative of a failure to support member communications at best -- an indifference to member communications at least; this is not the communication policy of a viable and concerned volunteer organization.

It does not reflect well on the National Rifle Organization that they have not bothered to insure easy and user-friendly communications with their membership. It does not reflect well on the National Rifle Organization that they are not pro-actively following up on new memberships, in the media (online/email) methods which have sufficed them to entice new members.

Most of all, it does not reflect well on the NRA that they are demonstrably willing to take our ... no, MY money ... but don't let me talk to them when I perceive a problem.

I would rather the NRA prove to be a caring, responsive entity which holds member communications as a primary priority.

So far, this does not characterized the policy of the NRA.

Open Range: Not?

Last Sunday I published an article (Gun Range Owner Says He's Unfairly Targeted) addressing the question of predatory legal attacks on established shooting ranges.

In this article, the 'city fathers' of League City, Texas, actively conspired with a 'developer' to force a long established shooting range so that the land could be condemned, and then sold to the developer to build homes in the area. Note that they did this on 'city time', which is supported by local taxes ... funding to which the range owner probably contributed.

After writing the article, I sent the link to our friends on The Unofficial IPSC List. I asked them to comment, and to suggest or submit any other similar stories of predation on land owned by Shooting Ranges.

I received several comments, both on the list and in personal mail. I've decided to post here the two most typical examples.

First, in a short comment which is unattributed (because I didn't ask the writer for permission to identify him when I cited him), is an example of the problems which might proliferate when a range attempts to "do the right thing":

An (unidentified) member of The Unofficial IPSC List said:

To assure the town that we were totally committed to public safety, our board of directors invited the NRA's range team to come and give us an assessment.

Huge mistake. After they were done, our 200 yard range became a 100 yard range and if they could have it their way, they would have us all shooting through cement pipes that went all the way to the targets.

Another contributer (who responded to the above quote) was Karl Rehn, of KRTRAINING.COM; an Austin, Texas firearms instructor. When asked, Karl generously allowed me to not only quote him, but to cite him by name.

Karl Rehn said:
Unfortunately that's pretty typical of the NRA Range dept's "help" to IPSC clubs.

Years ago I was a member of an IPSC club that bought land and built a nice range that was going to be a club-owned permanent facility with enough berms to run a major match including 200 yd rifle stages.

The state had recently passed a law mandating that all ranges in counties with a population over 100K comply with the NRA Range Manual -- which was a terrible law because the NRA Range Manual does not define standards for ranges.

The neighbors sued us and the judge in our county (less than 100K residents) decided that if the law was good for big counties it should apply to us too.

The NRA sent a guy that had never shot IPSC and had never seen an IPSC match. His only shooting experience was bird hunting with a shotgun in an open field.

His recommendations, if implemented, would have made it impossible to run any kind of practical shooting event.

During that period neighbors were trespassing - bringing TV news crews onto our property, and someone vandalized a bulldozer on the property.

The club went bankrupt, lost the range and sold the land to one of the neighbors that was suing us.

The only good thing that came from the case was that the state Attorney General reviewed the NRA Range Manual law and basically struck it down. That was important later when the CHL law passed and lots of little one-berm private ranges got built and certified by the state as "safe" to run the CHL shooting test.

An IDPA range in the area was vandalized a few years ago. One night someone came in, started up the bulldozer and drove it over all the props.

We did get a statewide range protection bill passed, around the time CHL passed, that provides ranges some protection against complaints about noise from those that move into an area where a range has been operational.

When I built my private range our main downrange neighbor complained about noise -- all the way to the state police firearms training unit who certifies ranges for CHL classes.

The neighbor was told that our range complied with all state laws and that he basically just had to tolerate the noise. His complaint occurred on a Sunday morning on the 3rd day of a multi-day rifle class. Since then we have stuck to mostly pistol shooting with limited long gun shooting and limited Sunday morning shooting and we've had no more complaints from neighbors.

Karl

That experience seems fairly typical, in the context of my experience that most shooting ranges are willing to make extraordinary efforts to be 'good neighbors'.

One good example is the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC), here in Oregon.

ARPC is centered on a small hill (approximate elevation: 100') which is actually a 'butte', in that it has two points of high elevation. The butte is the ultimate backstop berm for all of the ranges. Ranges include a 20+ table Bench-Rest range on the west side; a trap and skeet range on the west side; a 7-bay pistol range ("the North Range") on the North side of the butte, where every bay includes a 3-sided, roofed building with the open side toward the butte; and five more 'open' (no buildings included, at this time) shooting bays on the East side of the butte.

The North Range and the bays on the East side were used in the 2006 USPSA Multigun Nationals, the 2007 USPSA Multigun Area-1 Tournament, and the 2007 Cowboy Action (S.A.S.) "Shoot-out at Saddle Butte" Tournament.

Note that the closest neighbor is a farm house about 3/4 mile NORTH of the range. On the West, the U.S. Interstate 5 Freeway runs North/South 1/4 miles away on the other side of an orchard. On the other three sides, open fields provide a buffer zone.

Still, ARPC has a standing rule that while shooting on the North Range, the (pedestrian) doors on the covered shooting areas must be closed, to muffle the noise which may escape through these doors and thus annoy their distant neighbors.

Another example:

The Chehalem Valley Sportsman Club (home of Dundee Practical Shooters) is located immediately adjacent to a county park. It's a very nice park, and because the Dundee range is also backed up against a tall hillside, the danger of rounds leaving the range is minimized. In fact, in the bay closest to Cranberry Park, the club has an iron-clad policy of not placing targets where even a ricochet could possibly impact in the park. Neighbors include at least two wineries, which have never complained about the noise (possibly because they are located on the other side of nearby hills.

Still, the park is occasionally used in clement weather for outdoor weddings. The club has a policy of coordinating with special activities at the park. In the past several years, we have seen that weddings are often scheduled on the same day as USPSA matches. On those occasions, the club ALWAYS stops all competition and shooting for as much as an hour, to allow the solemnity of the wedding ceremony to continue without the contention of noise from the match which may reverberate from the tree-clad hills surrounding the range.

Most shooting ranges are originally placed far away from residences. However, as municipalities grow the 'neighborhood' may expand until residential housing is placed immediately adjacent to shooting ranges. The developers know that the range is there, yet they build there anyway ... and that's fine.

The problems occur when new residents decide that they are unwilling to endure the annoyance of noise from shooting ranges. If there is any fault to be assigned here, it is shared by the developers and the people who buy property in new developments. If the developer fails to inform buyers that a shooting range is in the vicinity, then the buyers should take their complaints to the developers. It may happen that the developers would be responsible for misrepresenting the neighborhood, or if they had informed the buyers that a range was in the neighborhood then the buyers are responsible for having bought property which may be subject to the annoyance of shooting in the near vicinity of their homes.

This is applicable only to noise issues.

If rounds are leaving the range and land in private property, the ranges may then be deemed responsible for either making changes in their range design, or discontinuing operations entirely.

It takes only a small number of (justifiable) complaints about 'rounds leaving the range' to require ranges to make such extensive physical reconfigurations that the range can no longer operate.

If you own a range near a municipal site which may someday be developed, you have very few option. Either you can buy up the adjacent property and keep it as a 'safe impact zone', or you can reconfigure your shooting bays ... often at similar or even greater expense.

You make that decision now, while land is 'relatively' inexpensive, or you can make it later, when your options are limited by the developers.

For more information about the NRA Range Manual, see the following links:

National Association of Shooting Ranges: ("Lessons Learned", 1996)

I have attempted to find the "NRA RANGE MANUAL", and my best Internet Surfing Efforts have been defeated. The best I can find is some extreme 'Star Wars' type gadgets here.

Apparently, a man named Richard Whiting authored a NRA Range Manual in 1988. It was available from amazon.com. Unfortunately, it is no longer available.

The Cedar Rod & Gun Club (?) wrote a Range Manual in 2004 which may provide usable information. Or not.

I tried to contact NRA directly for this information. I was unable to complete the contact because, although I joined 3 weeks ago, they haven't given me my member number. More on this later .. and I'm telling you, this is not a positive reflection on the NRA.

DC: The 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply ...

Interesting constitutional argument proposed by the DC Attorneys in their Weasel-worded attempt to squirm out from under the SCOTUS ruling on Municipal Gun Control:

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment's provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms apply only to the federal government, not the 50 states and the District of Columbia, lawyers for the nation's capital argued Friday in a written brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pay careful attention here, because this sentence is subject to mis-reading:

The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia. In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.

When I first read this, I understood it to say that the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution only applied to Federal legislation, and that States were not bound by the terms of the Constitution.

This would imply that the Federal government was bound by constitutional restrictions, but States (and the District of Columbia) could impose laws which were Unconstitutional if the Federal Government had imposed them.

The next two sentences seemed to support that argument:

As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.
"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."

You may think: "Oh damn, they got us there!". But the Constitutional restrictions are binding upon the States, under Article IV of the Constitution of the United States:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

...

But D.C. erred in that it not only applied its argument solely to the 2nd Amendment, but also argued that the District of Columbia was not a "State", and as a 'special case' it was accorded 'special status'.

The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia.

In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.

As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.

"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."

This interpretation has been described as "... very creative but wrong."

How likely is this argument to be taken seriously?

Because the case addresses not only the Second Amendment but also the peculiar status of the District of Columbia as a federal enclave, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court ruling will have a direct impact on the national gun-control issue.

In other words ... nice legal position, Washington Weasels; but ultimately indefensible.

A Clear Case for Bone Control

I wonder where the Brady Bunch was on this one?

Take a gentle, caring, inclusive milieu of "Animal House".
(Zit Joke / Food Fight!)



Add the gritty realism of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
(The Dawn of Man)


What do you get?


Man stabs another man with pork chop bone

ARDMORE -- An Oklahoma man was arrested after police say he stabbed another man in the neck with a pork chop bone during a food fight.

Police in Ardmore, Oklahoma responded to call of a fight outside a local business New Year's day. When they arrived, they found the victim covered in blood with a puncture wound to his neck.

Police arrested the suspect, 38-year-old Tony Willis a few block from the crime scene. According to authorities, Willis had blood on his clothes and they found the bone used in the attack.

The victim was treated at a local hospital and released.

Obviously the time has come for Bone Control.

(H/T: David Codrea, The War on Guns: "When Pork Chop Bones Are Outlawed ...")

Concealed Carry, Done Right

Last week I commented on an incident where a man who just wanted to carry a weapon for self-defense in a supermarket met ignoble failure because he couldn't keep his pistol in his pocket.

This week I draw your attention to a man with the same goal, who did everything right.

From the IndyStar, I give you Charlie Merrell:

A 51-year-old man stopped a masked man from robbing a Southside grocery store and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.

Charlie Merrell was in checkout line at Bucks IGA Supermarket, 3015 S. Meridian St., when a masked man jumped a nearby counter and held a gun on a store employee at 5:17 p.m. Monday, according to a police report made public today.

While the suspect was demanding cash from the workers, the police report states that Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the robber and ordered him to put down his weapon.

When the suspect hesitated, Merrell racked the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber, Officer Jason Bockting wrote in the report.
The suspect placed his gun and a bag of cash on the counter, dropping some of the money, police said. The suspect removed his mask and lay on the floor. Merrell held the suspect at gunpoint until officers arrived and took him away in handcuffs.

In the 252 comments (still counting), there is some discussion about the sentence:
"When the suspect hesitated, Merrell racked the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber ..."

In the story, it's not clear why Merrell racked his slide. Some people thought he engaged an armed robber with a pistol which was in Condition 3 (The chamber is empty and hammer is down with a charged magazine in the gun.)

I'm sure it's possible that Merrell was in Condition 3, but it's just as possible that he was in Condition 1 (Also known as "cocked and locked," means a round is in the chamber, the hammer is cocked, and the manual thumb safety on the side of the frame is applied) and merely racked the slide to take psychological advantage of the "Ka-CHUNK!" factor.

For that matter, it's just as possible that Merrell presented his pistol in Condition 0 (A round is in the chamber, hammer is cocked, and the safety is off.)

The 'Ka-CHUNK!" factor is here defined as the terrifying effect on a predator when he hears a defender either rack the pump on a 12-guage shotgun, or rack the slide on a pistol.

Ka-CHUNK!

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?


The movies and television make much of a cop with a pointed gun shouting such cogent phrases as "Freeze, Dog-Breath!" and "Stop or I'll shoot!". In real life, there's no reason for such histrionics. Think of it as a 'talk to the hand' moment.

Step 1: Get the predator's attention.
Step 2: Ka-CHUNK!
Step 3: pick up the predator's weapon and the bag-o-loot while the police are taking their time riding to the scene of the (failed) crime.

This is a much nicer resolution that that which we have recently seen in "Gun Free Zones", don't you think?

So do I.

Hope and Glory in Iraq

I've been aware of Bill Wittle at Eject! Eject! Eject! for a couple of years, but I have not been a regular reader.

My loss.

Thanks to Geek with a .45, I've been directed to Wittle's latest (as of this date) two-part oddyssey into the attitudes of Americans and analysis of what it takes to win a war ... or more precisely, what it takes to make a peace.

I'm humbled, and encouraged. Wittle is an inspired journal writer whose theme here is not 'how to win a war through superior firepower', but 'how to win a peace by showing that we are a people who love and desire peace'. This is badly expressed, and I apologize for my meager word-smithing skills. The clumsy phrases do, however, serve to give you the general idea of Wittle's message.

Part 1: Glory ... which has absolutely nothing at all to do with Glory as it is usually defined.

Part 2: Hope ... which has something to do with war, and everything to do with achieving a peace for a beautiful people who deserve nothing less.

Not us for us, but for them.

Peace in the Middle East is possible. This has been a dream, but now we may see that it is not an unobtainable goal when two peace-loving cultures share that dream. We do not strive to trade "Blood for Oil". We only hope to bring peace to a troubled land.

Benchmark

As I did in the beginning of 2007, now that it's 2008 it's time to thank the readers of this IPSC USPSA shooting blog.

Note the strike-out; one of the most significant issues (for readers of this blog) introduced in January: the process which eventually resulted in the 2008 USPSA Rule Book (see 1/16/07 "USPSA Rules Changes: 2008"). This is significant because for the first time in my 23+ years of Practical Shooting Competition (aka "Action Shooting") the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) now has its own book of rules which has absolutely no reference to International rules as established and maintained by the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). You'll see references to IPSC from time to time, but from this day forward when I talk about "Practical Shooting" in the United States of America, I'll be using USPSA rather than IPSC.

Kind of a shame, really. After all of these years, the expression IPSC (IP-SICK) just sort of rolls off the tongue. As SWMBO and I discussed today, it's difficult to communicate with the term "YUSP'SAH" (USPSA).

As an illustration, we also offered (1/14/07) "Winter IPSC Is Cool".

In February, we talked (2/12/07) about USPSA's unprecedented "four consecative years of sustained growth". We also mentioned (2/20/07) the ZUMBO meltdown, and (2/23/07) more about the USPSA New Rule Book.

March brought a lot of discussion about the differences between the then-current IPSC/USPSA rulebook and the proposed 2008 USPSA New Rule Book. I started with an extensive exhaustive compare/contrast exercise titled (3/1/07) "USPSA New Rule Book Resources", and included several specific illustrations of 'current' rules which were subject to improvement OR, rules which had (to my mind) been improved. Specifically, (3/3/07) 1.2.1 "General Courses of Fire", (3/5/07) 2.2.1 "Extend Rearward to Infinity" (See also a follow-up on 3/24/07, "Extend Into Infinity", with videos),

We also talked a couple of times about the Oregon "Range Nazi" bill, SB1012, once March 15 and again on March 21.

We also introduced the first Guest Blog by Stan Penkala(3/19), and discussed the overthrow of (3/20) the DC Gun Ban and , on March 27, introduced the "Evil 'Texas Star'", about which we were bound to learn more.

April was a month of extremes. I was elated that I took a co-worker to the range, and he had a great time. Then Remington was sold (see also here and here )to the international consortium Cereberus, followed immediately by a Los Angeles "Shooting Bill of Rights" which incorporated egregious municipal measures which would have made it difficult, if not impossible to exercise RKBA rights there.

Then on April 16, the massacre at Virginia Tech led to reactions on April 17.

"Buy a Gun Day" may have been ill-timed in this context, but some of us refused to allow the societal misanthrope of a madman compromise our own second amendment rights.

And if to underscore the difference between true evil and virtual evil, on April 29 I introduced Evil Bill and the Evil Oregon Star.


On May 1, 2007, I wrote a long post ("Target Control") about the Secretary of IPSC and his unilateral sanctions about the use of the Texas Star target in IPSC matches. This earned me (on May 15), the honor of being #2 on his personal "2006 Hostility to IPSC Award". I remain humbled by the honor, which as of this date remains available here. My only regret is that I am unable to achieve the coveted #1 spot, but I continue to strive for excellence.

I also mentioned the Pistol Caliber Carbine match on May 6, and included another Guest Article on the "CX4 Storm (Beretta) Magazine Adaption".

And finally, I was able to provide video footage of the Evil Bill's Evil Oregon Star Version 1.1.

June was, surprisingly (to me) the beginning of a long period when local 'club matches' were interrupted by Major Matches. I didn't spend as much time (for the next 7 months) shooting as much as I would prefer, but I still found subjects for commentary.

I got to shoot IPSC Steel for the first time at the COSSA range in Bend, and when ARPC presented a 'preview' of stages slated for the Nationals, I found some potential stage design problems in both "Home Run" and "Go Sit In The Corner". We also highlighted problems with BATFE procedures when reviewing firearms dealer records, as reported by Gun Owners of America.

July started out with the USPSA Area 1 Multigun Tournament (see also here and here and here .. and others) and was almost immediately followed by the R&R Racing Multigun Match. (Note: the R&R match included the exciting "Doors" stage, where so many match-nerves events caused personal meltdowns. A series of photographs where B. Grams paster-blasted an IPSC target with a .223 at close range ended up as a short photo opportunity in "The Front Sight" magazine.)

We also had the Columbia Cascade Section Tournament, and a follow-up on California Gun-Banner articles with this one which essentially trashed the gun-shop business in San Francisco. No wonder I moved out of there in 1976!~

August ... I met Ryan "Red" Horsley (not personally, only via email) of Red's Gun Shop in Idaho. This is a relationship which has continued as I have received links to every post he has written since then in his continuing battle against the predations of ATF agents. Someone needs to keep a finger on those ho-dads, and Red is there for us.

Also, my computer got friend by the Blue Bird of Happiness, and I had to buy a new one; I enjoyed an extended dialogue (kind of) with with a Brit who signs himself "The ASBO-monger" and who believes that Gun Control Works; ARPC hosted the 2007 Single Action Society (SAS) "Shootout at Saddle Butte"; the USPSA Elections were heating up; we had some more discussion about the 2008 USPSA Rule Book; and there was a description about an Open Carry issue in Virginia.


September ... the 2007 Croc Match invited a lot of controversy, as did California AB1417 ('microstamping of ammunition') for entirely different reasons; Oregon faced the question of whether a school teacher should be allowed to arm herself with a gun ... and Oregon flinched. This blue state hasn't enough guts to recognize the Constitution in the face of the "if it saves just one child ..." context. More on the DC Gun Ban legislation; Albany Rifle & Pistol Club presents back to back matches -- the 11th annual Single Stack Tournament, and the Third Annual Oregon Glock Championship (also here); I trash the NRA leadership (see December for a follow-up); more discussion on the Texas Star (with video, of course).


October ... "Gun Free Zones": school shooting in Cleveland High School (prophetic? See below); "Gun Control Doctors": a 3-part commentary (see also here) on physicians who lobby for gun-control issues to their patients during routine examinations; a premature list of the 'most popular articles of 2007'; Not Dead Yet - Gary, Indiana sues S&W et al ... a one-hour video showing how the municipality may actually be allowed to continue its 1999 suit against firearms manufacturers despite recent SCOTUS rulings; USPSA Election Results; (California governor) "Schwarzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill"; Concealed Carry on Campus (see also Empty Holster Week); another "Gun Free Zone" parody (see below.)


November ... Measure 50 in Oregon (union support of a state constitutional amendment); STI refuses to accept California Microstamping Restrictions; USPSA Level II Certification class (Albany Rifle & Pistol Club) emphasizes USPSA rules, not IPSC rules!;


December ...

.

Gun Range Owner Says He's Unfairly Targeted

The Galveston County Daily News

It's an old, yet sadly familiar story:

LEAGUE CITY (Texas) — Records show that top city officials spent at least seven months discussing how to shut down a gun range, a move range owner Ernest Randall says is aimed at helping a developer build homes in the area.

City Attorney Dick Gregg’s billing records show he participated in a series of meetings about how to “characterize a gun range as a nuisance and ultimately have it removed.” The legal fees cost taxpayers more than $6,000 from May to November.

Involved in the planning were Mayor Jerry Shults, City Administrator Chris Reed, other senior staff members and developer Sam Boyd, who gave $4,000 to Shults’ campaign in August 2005.

The records show Gregg billed the city for gun range discussions with the mayor at least seven times and for conversations with Boyd at least five times.

In NW Oregon, of the six outdoor ranges within 100 miles of my home, two of them are under repeated attack by private individuals (or companies) who want long-established gun clubs to shut down their range.


Shooting ranges take up a lot of land, not only because the 'old established' ranges started when rural property was relatively inexpensive; not only because they need room for future expansion (including parking and new bays to accommodate new Competitive Shooting Sports); but also because as long as a box of .22 rimfire ammunition is marked "Range: 1-1/2 miles Be Careful", a shooting range needs to control access to its downrange area.

But as towns and cities grow their populations, the suburbs spread out to where they often infringe closely on the land owned by gun clubs, and the residents in these new developments are not happy with the sound of gunshots on a Saturday Morning as they mow their lawns and watch their children play in the back yard.

More frequently, the source of litigation isn't from established residences. It's from land developers who buy property immediately adjacent to shooting ranges with the expectation that, by complaining to EPA and otherwise bringing governmental pressure to bear against long-established shooting ranges, they can drive the gun clubs out of business and realize a substantial increase in the value of their property AFTER they build new residences there.

Their investment in these civil actions is not often as high as what it costs gun clubs to defend against them, or to modify their shooting ranges to accommodate new environmental or residential situations. Many ranges have been closed in recent years, not because they actually constitute a hazard to their surroundings, but because they don't have the 'deep pockets' necessary to defend themselves against nuisance lawsuits or civil actions.

More, with increasing awareness of (for example) polution of waterways by lead deposits, and potential disruption of wildlife movement, the Environmental Protection Agency is sometimes called in to add more pressure against gun clubs who have their own outdoor shooting range.

According to the National Association of Shooting Ranges (NASR), in a 1996 article titled "Case Studies: How Ranges Manage to Stay Open or Re-Open",

EPA is not out inspecting on their own. They go out because an angry neighbor called, and the neighbor is angry about an entirely different issue such as sound or club members' bad attitudes.

NASR, in the same article, offers a 'bad' case study, and also a number of suggested guidelines to follow in operating a shooting range:

- Conduct yourself in a professional manner.

- Be a responsible member of your community and operate your club with professionalism.

- Get proactive.

- Establish your club as an asset to the community.

- Support youth activities and offer your range or clubhouse as a meeting place. Boy Scouts, 4-H, American Legion all have shooting programs for kids.

- Schedule hunter education classes through your state's hunter education coordinator. Many classes have live fire as part of the course. Offer your range and clubhouse.

- Consider having a ladies shooting activity. Call NRA Women's Issues or the Training Department for information on Refuse to Be A Victim or a personal protection course, taught by women for women. Do not be disappointed if the first try does not yield the expected results. Keep trying. Call NRA at 703-267-1414.

- Get to know your neighbors.

- Invite them to club functions.

- Be prepared to discuss any issues they may have concerning safety or operations.

- Always try to resolve their concerns in a respectful manner.

- Advertise your presence.

- Billboards or signs let people driving by know you are there. (Could be the couple buying the lot next door.)

- Keep projectiles on your property.

- If you are shooting lead shot into water-STOP! Change direction, change to steel or Bismuth, but change. You are headed for a predicable result that will not be pleasant.

In the meantime, the Main Steam Media (here, the International Herald Tribune) equates going to a shooting range with "... 'car bowling', in which low-flying pilots drop bowling balls on cars parked on the runways of (hopefully) little-used private airstrips."

Message delivered: You're a shooter? You're a vandal.

No wonder we can't get a fair shake in our own community.

Blogmeat: Live Leak Video Theme

Test-firing the gun from an F35 Lightning

850-round M60 MG test (Remember Basic training back in the '60s, when they showed us the barrel-meltdown on an M60 which fired more than 350 rounds without a stop? No more ... New and Improved!)

Area Denial Weapons System (ADWS) - Australia, 2005



Redneck Picnic: Kids at Camp ... with machine guns and having fun.


America has 90 guns for each 100 people
(Text)

Video: CH-46E livefire exercise

Video: Chinook helicopter self-destruct

Video: Iraqi insurgents attacked by air support

Also here and here ...

Air strike bombing test up close

F16 Taliban truck strike

AF airstrike on multiple Taliban positions in support of British forces

Winnepeg/BC Project E-Portal gun seizure

Immigration By The Numbers

The clock is ticking down to the end of 2007, and I'm looking for a summary of the most important issues in America. This would be subjective in almost any analysis, which you can read as saying it's all opinion.

I like opinion. On occasion I even indulge in stating opinions of my own. But as I surf the net it occurs to me that what's missing on almost everybody's List of the 2007 Most Important Issues in America is ... Legal Immigration.

Nope, I'm not even talking about Illegal Immigration. I'm talking about LEGAL immigration ... the 1,000,000 people a year who are authorized by the United States Government to immigrate to America.

Nobody is looking at this.

Well, that's wrong too. Someone is looking at this: Numbers, USA.

NumbersUSA describes itself thus:

NumbersUSA Action is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America. It opposes efforts to use federal immigration policies to force mass U.S. population growth and to depress wages of vulnerable workers. NumbersUSA Action is pro-environment, pro-worker, pro-liberty and pro-immigrant. Activists in the NumbersUSA Action network are Americans of all races and include many immigrants and the spouses, children and parents of immigrants. Those who need to refer to NumbersUSA Action with a short, descriptive modifier should call it an "immigration-reduction organization."

Perhaps their most powerful statement is this 2007 video by NumbersUSA Executive Director Roy Beck, who uses effective graphics to demonstrate the impact on American resources of excessive LEGAL immigration quotas.

You may have already seen these videos; but if not, you might take a minute (well, over 13 minutes for the combined viewing time) to acquaint yourself with the issues.

Part 1: 6:47 minutes

Part 2: 6:53 minutes

(NB: you may also be interested in an October 2006 debate on "Money and Politics", a 9:25 minute video available at YouTube.)

The Portrait of Dorian Grey

Somewhere in America, A Mother is dragging her child around the country in her quest for the Presidency of the United States.

As a campaign strategy, I think this is not working.

I've only just discovered "Shooting The Messenger". Interesting blogspot, covers RKBA issues as well as cultural and other news stuff. Pithy comments, good selection of news to parody. I liked it, you may also.

I have linked to this blogspot under "Places I Recommend" on the sidebar.

Brits: New Year, Same Ol' Brits

I swear I try to avoid showing Our Britannic Cousins in the worst possible context, but they continue to impose their Politically Correct Socialist world-view on their subjects citizens subjects, to the point where they constitute a Target-Rich Environment.

What is an Honest Geek to do, except to show them up in the content-impoverished context in which they have placed themselves?

Two examples tonight (I'm deliberately limiting myself):

1: "Rules say homes must be safe for robbers"

(Also, see here.)

A British woman whose house has been repeatedly burglarized 'to the cost of thousands of pounds' informs the police that, since they (* the police *) seem unable to protect her home and her belongings, she will reinforce her defenses. Specifically, she intends to add barbed wire to the top of the fence which surrounds her property.

The police politely inform her that "... she could risk a prosecution herself if someone would be hurt".

To summarize: She is advised against improving the wards about her property, even though she does so to guard against vandalism, theft, even personal attack in the privacy of her home. Why? Because in the event that a home intruder suffers so much as a hangnail in his pursuit of larceny and/or mayhem, he may legitimately prosecute HER for ... I don't know what. "Establishing an Attractive Nuisance", I suppose.

2: War Hero's Daughter Facing Arrest for Tackling Yobs who Defaced 'war memorial':
The daughter of a WWII RAF pilot lives near a 'memorial garden' ... an obelisk which is the frequent object of floral displays in honor of British servicemen and women .. objects which hooligans frequently deface, vandalize, trash and otherwise disrespect. After months of attempting to interest the police in the vandalism, with no positive results, she confronts the gang. The leader of the gang taunts her to the point where she slaps his face. He laughs, says "That's assault" and turns her in to the police.

The police, previously disinterested in addressing her complaints, are johnny-on-the-spot in bringing assault charges against her.

A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police confirmed the force is investigating an alleged assault on a 15- year-old boy.

He admitted however that Mangotsfield has a problem with youth vandalism.

Inspector Gus Krouwel said: 'Neighbourhood [sic] police regularly receive complaints about groups of around eight young people gathering by the war memorial, drinking and leaving litter.

"I do appreciate that people may get frustrated with this sort of situation but the appropriate response is to work with agencies [emphasis added] like the police and local authority to find solutions."

Mrs Lake will voluntarily attend a police station next month to be formally arrested. She could be charged with assault which carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison or a £5,000 fine.

Apparently, that "work with agencies" approach only works if you're a Yob.
__________________

So here we are with examples describing (1) a woman who wishes to protect her person and her property, and (2) a woman who wishes to protect public property. Despite repeated attempts to elicit either support or protection from the 'legally constituted authorities' (eg: the police), their pleas are ignored.

However, when they attempt to provide protection or other pro-active measures to discourage the criminals from treating them as victims, the discover that either the system or the Yobs themselves turn the system against them to the point where they are subject to punitive measures administered by the government which disallows them the right to protect themselves, their property, or their neighborhood.

Whatever happened to the concept of protecting our women? Whatever happened to the concept of "to protect and to serve"?
_____________

Somewhere between the citizenry and the National Government, there is a dysfunctional disconnection. I am loath to say "I loath the Constabulary of Great Britain", because I hold it as an article of faith that the constabulary would prefer to protect its citizenry. However, I don't see that happening. Instead, I see the constabulary enforcing preposterous edicts against the people it is, supposedly, sworn to serve.

I can see that this is a bizarre situation. You can see it too. We all perceive that the British Bobby is contributing to the degradation of the Quality of Life in Great Britain, but nobody who is in a position to do something about it is acting.

We can only imagine the frustration of the average British Subject to this sad state of affairs.

Which brings us to the point of the discussion: if the British had not made the possession of firearms, and the "Castle Doctrine", both illegal ... we would be reading about the death of Yobs and the otherwise peaceful civilization enjoyed by the British.

It may well be that the purpose of the British Public is only to serve as A Bad Example of a government which no longer serves the public.

I pray for you, my British Cousins. But until you take control of your government ... instead of allowing your government to take control of you ... things there-abouts will only get worse, instead of better.

Tea party, anyone?

Knight Rider 2008

They're Ba-a-a-a-ck!

I'm not a big television viewer (my TV has been connected only to DVD and VHS players for the past 10 years) but I have always thought that the old Knight Rider television series was flawed mainly by the presence of the egregious David Hasselhoff.

No Hasselhoff, no mo ...

Hit 80s show Knight Rider is making a comeback.

Stars from the new two-hour special stepped out at the NBC lot in Burbank, California, to show off a new Kitt - the Mustang Shelby.

Gone is the Pontiac Trans Am which played the faithful sidekick of David Hasselhoff, to be replaced by the sleek, suped-up Ford.

The Hoff has also been swapped for a new model, former soap star Justin Bruening who told journalists: "I am like a 10 year old right now, every time I turn the car on I just start grinning ear to ear because it sounds cool, I feel like a little kid who bought his own candy store and just gets to play around in it."

Here's the video of the new Shelby Mustang "Kitt":

Note: for a while there, you had a chance to bid on the original KITT, but unfortunately the auction was put on hold because there were more bids than the seller could handle.

The retro television series may be delayed in implementation, because the star of the show was recently injured on the set of the pilot.

Akins Acccelerator 3

In the 24 hours since I wrote this article, Bill Akins has written several clarifying statements in the COMMENTS section. He suggests that I use these comments to write a third article.

I don't want to steal Mr Akins' information and label it as my own, nor do I want to write an entire article consisting of edited quotes from his comments. In fact, it seems to me that he has done a good job of writing that third article himself, and in the process has learned that the first draft is not likely to provide all the information nor to present it 'the best way'.

Therefore I will encourage readers to view the comments attached to this article and, again, make up your own mind. (Further comments are encouraged.)

Two other points:
1: Mr Akins has included his email address in his comments. You may wish to send him supportive emails, if you are so inclined. Given that he is already feeling besieged by the ATF, I would not burden him with any accusatory correspondence.

2: In his earliest comment to this article, Mr. Akins stated:

In your 2nd article you first said in your opinion my device was not a machine gun under Federal law. Then later you said you believed I had invented a way to turn a semi automatic rifle into a machine gun.
It cannot be both.

Fair enough. I realized as I wrote that statement I might be called upon to defend it. I'm uncomfortable doing so, only because it sounds like William Jefferson Clinton asking what the meaning of 'IS' is, and I shrink from any comparison to our 42nd president.

By the ATF definition of 'machine gun', the Akins Accelerator does not qualify.

But when I look at the animated GIF, I'm thinking 'machine gun'. Why? Because the device allows a semi-automatic rifle to be fired faster than the 'twitch-rate' of my trigger finger. That's not the official ATF definition, that's just my own personal definition. I wrote hundreds of words trying to make that point, I'll not repeat the exercise now.

Whether or not other devices accomplish the same end, whether the ATF has singled out Mr. Akins, and in fact whether full-automatic weapons should be regulated are legitimate subjects for discussion.

In the end, I'm not the one who has to be convinced. I don't care if the Akins Accelerator converts a 10/22 into a machine gun. I wouldn't buy one, personally, because I've shot enough full-auto weapons to know that I'm not very good with them; that doesn't mean I agree with the federal regulations currently in effect.

Beyond that, I am not clear on what Mr. Akins would have me do. Write to my congressman v. the confirmation of Michael Sullivan as head of the ATF? Check - done. Write about the controversy in an attempt to make more people aware if it? Check - done.

Take up the cause of the Akins Accelerator and lead a protest against governmental mismanagement? No, this is not my battle and I'm not on a mission.

However, there is one more thing I can do:

Mr. Akins, if you would like to write your own blog article, to tell the whole story in your own words, I would be happy to receive it as a MS-WORD document and publish it here. I've always encouraged Guest Articles. I only reserve the right to edit for grammar, spelling, word-choice (I prefer to avoid profanity), libelous statements and ad hominem attacks. In short, I reserve the right NOT to publish but I'll probably give a Guest Author a chance to rewrite rather than summarily reject a Guest Article.

Kipling: The Young British Soldier

We haven't had a Kipling Night for 'ever so long'.

Here's Kipling's interpretation of the Afghanistan Experience:

The Young British Soldier:

The ’arf-made recruity goes out to the East
’E acts like a babe an’ ’e drinks like a beast,
An’ ’e wonders because ’e is frequent deceased
Ere ’e’s fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

Now all you recruities what’s drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an’ ’ark to my lay,
An’ I’ll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what’s fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

First mind you steer clear o’ the grog-sellers’ huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay’nets that rots out your guts—
Ay, drink that ’ud eat the live steel from your butts—
An’ it’s bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .

When the cholera comes—as it will past a doubt—
Keep out of the wet and don’t go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An’ it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .

But the worst o’ your foes is the sun over’ead:
You must wear your ’elmet for all that is said:
If ’e finds you uncovered ’e’ll knock you down dead,
An’ you’ll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

If you’re cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don’t grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it’s beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .

Now, if you must marry, take care she is old—
A troop-sergeant’s widow’s the nicest I’m told,
For beauty won’t help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain’t enough for a soldier.
’Nough, ’nough, ’nough for a soldier . . .

If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch ’em—you’ll swing, on my oath!—
Make ’im take ’er and keep ’er: that’s Hell for them both,
An’ you’re shut o’ the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .

When first under fire an’ you’re wishful to duck,
Don’t look nor take ’eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you’re livin’, and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

When ’arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don’t call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She’s human as you are—you treat her as sich,
An’ she’ll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

When shakin’ their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o’ the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an’ don’t mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it’s ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

__________________

Sergeants won't tell their men about these things today. Kipling will, whether you like it or not.

Mariah Carey Is The New Mother Theresa

ohnotheydidnt: Mariah Carey Is The New Mother Theresa

I get the strangest links to my blog. I have no idea who (or why!) linked to Cogito Ergo Geek from here ...

... but the implications are interesting.