January Personals

Randomly Hittin' Witten
My old friend, former IPSC shooter and current Shotgunner, dog-trainer without peer and BBG Master Randy wrote today to say that he's looking for someone who will build him a "cutting edge website" for his business.

I put him in touch with another friend, Brian, who (among other accomplishments) is the webmaster for the Albany Rifle & Pistol Club.

Only trouble is, Brian lives in Albany and Randy lives in Portland. It's less than 100 miles, but Brian may not have the time nor the inclination to commute for the personal conferences which such enterprises inevitably require.

So if you're a web designer in the Portland, Oregon area, or you can recommend someone who is, please email at the addy on the pickup tailgate (bottom of this page).

_____________________________________________________________

New Hardware

SWMBO gifted me with some new computer hardware this Christmas, and tonite I finally plugged them into the Mighty Geek Puter.

First was an ACER 20" LCD Monitor.
I was concerned about installing this, because my computer table is a roll-top desk. I wasn't as much worried about the footprint (my old 19" DELL ViewSonic weighs a ton and takes up more depth than width) as I was about the ease of installation. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the new monitor sits far enough back that I could dig the keyboard out of the keyboard drawer, put it on the desktop (which is at a much more comfortable height) and still have bare desk left over.

Next was a Logitech MX1000 Laser Cordless Mouse.
I haven't actually installed this one yet. But I did all the 'advance work (opened the box, plugged the recharging dock into a power source, put the mouse in the dock to charge.) It has been an hour, and looking at the indicator lights on the mouse I see that it is 'fully charged'. But I don't want to switch to the new mouse quite yet, because as long as I'm using my MicroSoft corded laser mouse, I don't have to reboot.

SWMBO chose this particular mouse because she loves me like crazy. Either that, or I'm driving her crazy complaining about the cord. (As far as I'm concerned, either rationale is acceptable as long as I get rid of the *&@#$! cord, man!)

One of the problems with having a roll-top desk for a computer table is that the mousepad almost necessarily rests on a pull-out 'breadboard' on either side. That's convenient, sure. You can be either left-hand or right-hand dominant, and the mouse is equally close to hand.

But the stinkin' cord, when you push the mouse 'up', gets caught in the gap between the breadboard and the face of the desk. The result is a hang-up, as I try to tug the cord out of the space which I have cleverly named the 'mousetrap'. Actually, I usually call it the *&@#$! mousetrap.

This SHOULD solve the problem because there is [DUH!] not cord. Therefore, there is no *&@#$! mousetrap.

I'll let you know tomorrow how this works out. But I'm already in love with the new cordless laser mouse (don't let nobody sell you a mouse that isn't laser, 'cause that is the Jones, I'm tellin' you!)

The only drawbacks that I can see are:

1. you have to get use to the feel of a new mouse, which totally screws your Minesweeper stats;
2. you have to put the mouse in the charging dock at the end of every puter session;
3. I have NO idea if the mouse can spend as much time on the puter without recharging as I can;
4. since the recharging dock plugs into the same power bar as the puter, I can no longer turn off the master switch when I'm done working for the night. I can only turn off the power switch for the PC.

That last isn't such a big deal. I just have to learn new habits. Since the BlueBird of Happiness burned my last PC, I've become a Belt AND Suspenders guy about protecting my PC from power surges. Fortunately, I recognize that I am obsessive and I can probably convince myself that I can go to sleep at night with only ONE power switch protecting my PC from burnout.

And no, it isn't easy being me.
__________________________________________________

I'm not going t0 do THAT again!

For personal reasons, I chose to spend my 3-day MLK-day holiday weekend driving to Baker City, Oregon.

I was confident that I could [ahem] weather the weather, and it's not as if I'm unaccustomed to driving in snow. Also, I was confident that the I84 freeway would be relatively snow-free, as Oregon may not do a lot of 'good things' but they know how to keep the Interstate Freeways open.

How else are Californians going to import their beer here?

I drove the 385 miles to Baker City in 7 hours. Simple. Put the charge-o-meter (cruise control) on '70'm, drive until the gas-o-meter (fuel gauge) reads 1/4 tank left. Gas up. Drive the rest of the way.

I left at 11am, after prudently buying a set of tire chains from Les Schwab (if you don't use them, Les will buy them back next summer ... it's a policy of essentially free tire chains over the winter. Les made a fortune with this kind of policies.) The freeway was dry all the way. I pulled in to the Oregon Trail Motel at 6pm, got my room and dinner at the attached restaurant at 8pm ...and it was snowing.


When I got up the next morning, the landscape was filled with snow and my Damned Old Ford was black on the bottom, white on the top.

I took care of my business, waited until 11am to start my trip back. My hope was that the freeway traffic would have cleared the freeway of enough snow that the pavement would be clear of snow.



This was only partly true.

As I approached the first range of mountains, I saw a line of trucks pulled off to the shoulder of the freeway, chaining up.

The country to the side was beautiful in its snowy mantle, but I was having problems. The 19 degree weather had frozen my windshield wipers (not replaced since I bought the Damned Old Ford in July of 2006), and trucks passing me were kicking up muddy slush ... which I could not remove. The windshield washers, of course, were frozen up, the nozzles clogged. This did not change all day.


At the bottom of the other side of that small mountain range, there was another line of class-8 trucks, wearily removing their tire chains because there was too much bare pavement; that breaks tire chains, they had no choice.

After I passed La Grande (a major town in these here parts), I continued on I84 over the BGlue Mountains. There was a sign posted to the effect that "Chains Are Required For Vehicles Over 10,000 Pounds And For All Towing Vehicles". Yup, you guessed it. Another line of semis chaining up along the road.


The next 40 miles was Forty Miles of Bad Road. Part of the roadway was clear, due to previous traffic. That will break chains, as was evident by the occasional pile of broken tire chains on the roadway. It looked like like the trail of a dyspeptic chain monster, who shat chains every few miles. And of course, the 10 freeway miles past La Grande was crowded by truckers who had wearily pulled off the main road to chain up again.

The last 10 miles in the mountains, though, around the vicinity of Meacham, was Trucker Hell. There was no bare pavement, no visibility, and no forgiveness. Just mile after mile of 6 percent downgrade, weak guardrails to keep us from sliding off the road, and we all ... me, and the truckers ... understood why chains WERE required for traversing this Hell Ride.

It took me three hours to drive the 96 miles between Baker City and Pendleton. The last ten mile .. after the end of Killer Hill (nobody ever officially renamed 'Cabbage Hill", originaly named for the Skunk Cabbage plants which populate the roadside during the summer months) were clear of snow. But it's worth the moment to go back and review the road.

There's a place just before Cabbage Hill on this freeway, part of the original Oregon Trail, which is called "Dead Man's Pass". Much like the Donner Party, a wagon train in the 1860's was said to have been snowbound during an ill-timed winter crossing, with many members of the party freezing to death. This was only a historic site in my mind before today. I grew up in this country, and the place never seemed too daunting to me.

That day, though, I was ready to believe that people had died because of the weather. There were no (or few) bare patches on the freeway. Every inch was a slippery, snowy hell.

I quit taking pictures at this point. Too scary to drive, let alone use only one hand on the steering wheel.

After 3 hours, I completed the 96 miles to Pendleton ... where I bought new windshield wipers, and a squeegee to clean my windshield (since the windshield washers were frozen). I drove only another 90 miles to Biggs Junction where I forted up for the night and tried to get some sleep. I was completely burned out due to driving in adverse road conditions.


The next morning, after spending the night in the parking lot, my Damned Old Ford was still redolent in its coat of road grime, frozen muddy slush, and icicles from Hell.

I washed the car before I got home. No telling how much salt had been applied to the road surface; no sense in chancing rust on the car after my naturally sanguine nature had been so thoroughly erroded.

Hell ride, for sure.

The next time I drive to Baker City, it will be high summer and the temperature will be in the nineties. I don't need this slush crap!

We're not doing that any more!

Higbie and Stan both sent me this video. Higbie sent it without comment. Stan suggested that there was a lesson to be learned here. Perhaps so.






Money quotes:

First guy: "We're not doing that any more!"

Second guy: "Nope, no more iron.

Third guy: "No more?

I'm guessing that the third guy wasn't the shooter.

You can also see (and download) the video here.

DC, ATF, 2nd, SCOTUS, Heller and Shepherd

Confusing title, ain't it?

Five days ago I added my comments to Syd's (1911) in respect to the ATF/Solicitor General's Amicus Curia brief on DC vs HELLER as presented to the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

Syd said it was outrageous. I agreed, but suggested that the Feds (in all their many bureaucratic manifestations) could hardly allow the question to be decided by the Supremes without dropping a couple of pennies in the pot.

As I was reading my email today, I was struck by one analysis I found in a subscription email. Not surprisingly, it was Jim Shepherd's comments in The Shooting Wire.

Shepherd states his opinion so nicely, and is so clear in his thoughts, I cannot in good conscience voice an opinion on this subject (or most subjects) without providing you with the same Shepherd perspective from which I benefit.

Since Shepherd's daily comments are the only part of that website's posts which is NOT perma-linked, I reluctantly publish the most significant portion of that article rather than to provide a link for your convenience:

Spin aside, there are a few irrefutable truths coming from the Solicitor General asking the Supreme Court to send D.C versus Heller back to trial court for a "reconsideration."

First, politicians and bureaucrats both believe you can tell average voters anything you please and they'll forget it before you come back up for reelection.

Second, gun owners are not "average voters." Gun owners have memories like an elephant's and carry great big chips on their shoulders from the other "fibs" you've told them in the past.

Third, and maybe most importantly, you can say you are whatever you want, but what you do will eventually show you for what you really are.

This wasn't a sellout by the Bush administration.

The Bush administration is already history.

This was the bureaucratic machine pronouncing the time of death of the "W" presidency while simultaneously covering its own posterior at the expense of the Second Amendment. The amicus filing said - up front - that the Second Amendment was, really, about individual rights. But, a more contemporary reading of the Amendment might suggest that the bans on some guns in some areas by some groups was really OK.

It might not make sense to us, but it makes perfect sense to a bureaucrat. They survive via obfuscation - deliberate, willful actions are taken daily by bureaucrats to make the laws completely contradictory. After all, in an absolute world, there's very little room for "a more contemporary reading" of anything. It either is; or it isn't.

Bureaucrats don't like that environment any more than bad breath likes Listerine.

And bureaucrats, like the monuments across the city, aren't going anywhere. Politicians are a dime a dozen and are changed like sweaty sheets, something politicians are often familiar with. Bureaucrats, however, simply nod at their new "bosses" agreeing to whatever makes the latest crop of dunderheads happy. After all, they know that the politician is helpless without them and their seniority trumps the newest politician to hold down what they really consider "part time positions" inside THEIR government.

And why shouldn't they feel that way? The politicians stop making genuine efforts to change Washington about 30 minutes into their new jobs. They're blinded by their yes-men (and women), indebted to their contributors, and focused on raising more money from more contributors so they can stay around to enjoy more of the perks that come along with having jobs the founding fathers always intended to be short-term.

Jaded? Maybe. Cynical? Probably. But I have a surprise for the bureaucrats and the politicians… they're fooling with a different group of voters when they screw gun owners just like they do everyone else.

We might not always be the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but neither are all gun owners lacking prehensile digits and the ability to reason. In fact, we gun owners have a deep-seated value system, the ability (generally) to believe that "yes" or "no" or "wrong" or "right" aren't variables depending on the political circumstance…and we can give a terrier a lesson in stubbornness.

We've always managed to keep our heads when everyone around us loses theirs. That's why gun owners are always called upon when times get tough and sacrifices, sometimes ultimate ones, are needed.

The same politically correct weasels who vilify us in the good times come to us hat in hand when things get tough and rough measures are called for.

To our simultaneous credit and detriment, we keep bailing them out.

We can -- temporarily -- accept that there are political realities that require a level of compromise that we're…uncomfortable…with, but that isn't the be-all and end-all for us. Remember that value system I mentioned? We don't just think guns are fun, or, as William Jefferson Clinton once noted, for duck hunting. At our core, we believe that guns are a necessity for the Republic -- and we act accordingly.

And this single quality may be the downfall of the bureaucrat. After all, they know they can outlast their normal adversary- the politico. They also believe, wrongfully so, that they can simply wear down gun owners to the point we'll eventually just give up, give in, and surrender our guns.

Here's a classic American response to someone else who thought average Americans lacked the grit to, well, stick to their guns when it looked hopeless:

Nuts.

--Jim Shepherd

It's not so confusing after all, is it.

Or maybe, it's more confusing once you start to think upon it.

Comment: Shepherd dismisses Bush's lack of leadership (if that's what it is) in allowing this Amicus Curia brief to be filed, assuming that it is a Bureaucratic CYA move. His position seems to be that Bush's part in the action is one of the following;

(a) Bush agreed completely with the brief, and allowed both the ATF and the Solicitor General to conspire in formulating an official position with which reflects the President's opinion.

(b) Bush assumes no leadership position in this issue at all. The bureaucrats are acting independent of the Executive Branch, either with Bush's tacit acceptance or ignoring any input which Bush may or may not have offered.

(c) Bush was completely blindsided by this action. He was not consulted by the bureaucrats, and The Executive was ignorant of the brief. This raises the question -- why has Bush not responded? After four days of national debate (albeit perhaps not prominent debate ... the president probably doesn't spent much time reading public debate which is not reflected in the MSM), the president has had ample opportunity to react to what might be considered a unilateral attack on the constitution by rogue departments of The Executive Branch. Doesn't he realize that this is an issue of significant importance in the minds of a significant portion of his constituency?

(d) Bush is too witless to recognize an attack on the Constitution by his bureaucracy. Either that, or he considers this an 'administrative' attempt to maintain some control on what could evolve into a volatile National issue, if SCOTUS entirely overturns gun-control laws such as are exemplified by the D.C. gun ban. That is to say, Bush believes that it is the place of the administrative infrastructure to address these issues.

(e) Similar to the last, but allowing the benefit of the doubt to his political sagacity; Bush is wisely allowing his underlings to lead the attack. As he watches to see which way it goes, the President is unwilling to impose the powerful influence of his office to find a resolution of the issues at this early date. Later, depending upon the public reaction to this move, he may disavow it.

Personally, I'm now leaning toward the last interpretation. It doesn't reflect well on Bush's intention to take an early political stand in favor of the Second Amendment, but it does demonstrate that he is a politician of not inconsiderable political skill. On the other hand, perhaps I'm giving Mr. Bush too much credit.

What do you think?

These comments, especially the last, have taken me a bit beyond Shepherd's. His article provided more grist for the mill of political thought, and encouraged me to seek deeper understanding of the President's motivation in allowing this bureaucratic move without current reaction.

As always, YMMV. I'd really like to see some independent thinking in the Comments.


If you haven't yet subscribed to The Shooting Wire, I again encourage you to do so. Today.

Alphecca: Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing

Alphecca: Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing


HT: Michael Bane Blog

Alphecca has a nice(?) summary of the Democratic Primary Candidate responses to questions about 2nd Amendment issues..

Essentially, they're willing to pay lip service to the second amendment, but in the final analysis they have no ... NO! ... comprehension of what it's all about.

They're willing to make lip music about 2nd Amendment rights, but at best it's couched in terms of hunting rights.

Has nobody ever expressed to them that the Second Amendment is not about the Right to Hunt?

Those of you who visit here are probably .. oh, I'm going to guess 90% competition shooters. You may be 50% competition shooters, but I expect that is the low-end of the range. It would be easy to typify you as people who shoot semi-automatic pistols in USPSA competition, perhaps even semi-automatic rifles (and some Practical Shotgun) in Multigun competition. It's impossible to even guess your primary concerns vis-a-vis firearms usage.

And it's also misleading to do so.

Chances are, people who shoot competitively against cardboard/steel targets also have other interests. I expect many of you have Concealed Carry licenses, whether you carry daily or not. You probably shoot in other competitive disciplines, such as Trap, Skeet, IDPA, IROC, etc.




But those are most likely your secondary interests, and to argue that 'exotic' firearms (such as an STI Grand Master) are worth protecting because they have a legitimate 'competitive' use is to beg the question.

The facts are, there are a tempting number of reasoned arguments which may be used to justify possession of any kind of 'exotic' firearm, but there is only one justification for owning any single weapon:

It is a God-given right to own weapons, and man's attempt to restrict or regulate this ownership is a denigration of our rights.

Maybe it's not that easy.

Sure, somewhere there's a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' weapons. I'm thinking crew-served weapons, and I'm not certain that even this raw minimal definition is any better than an arbitrary measure which is not supportable by the Second Amendment. Is a 155MM Howitzer a legitimate weapon for personal ownership? How about an 80MM Mortar ... at least it's man-portable, and it would be an excellent weapon for a Militia force. Isn't that the measure of the 2nd Amendment?

This is obviously a question which is ripe with gray areas, and if we look at the actual text of the 2nd Amendment as a test, it requires a stretch of the imagination to define:

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.

If we define 'arms' as any firearm, and we define 'keep and bear arms' as meaning that the cited arms must be man-portable, it may be that you are justified in owning any arms which you can 'bear', which is to say 'carry'. Thus, a mortar may be a legitimate arm while a 105MM howitzer may not be a legitimate arm.

On the other hand, if I were engaged in 'militia' operations, a 105mm howitzer may be a handy tool.

I only offer this example to illustrate that the question is not a simple conundrum.

The answers are not easy to come by. In point of fact, the questions are not easy to define.

All I know is that the politicians have neither the questions, nor the answers. And if we depend upon them to defend our God-given rights, we're in deep doo-doo.

The only answers that Politician have is to enact laws. When is the last time you saw a law which acknowledged your rights?

When is the last time you saw a law which deprived you of your rights?

Right, what I thought.

Put not your faith in the politician, my son. They're a bunch of self-serving liars. All of them. Think of your favorite politician, and imagine that he/she is a liar.

You've got the picture now.

Some things are just meant to happen

Some days things happen that aren't likely, but they happen anyway. Some meetings are either the result of random chance, or serendipity. Or maybe the Hand of God, if that's not too strong an assertion. I never understood those moments, but I've certainly experienced them.

Today, I experienced another of those moments.

I was at my desk this afternoon, trying to modify a computer program that the users said they wanted changed, but they hadn't given me detailed specifications about how they wanted it changed. This is like trying to write a book with no idea what it's about. Frustrating, aggravating, probably resulting in a product which has no use without extensive modification. But you have to do it anyway.

I got up from my desk and wondered the halls. Looking out the windows, I saw that the day was uncharacteristically sunny and dry, and there were two parking spaces only a few feet from the door to my office building.

Quick to jump on the opportunity I grabbed my coat and headed to the parking lot a half-mile away, where I had parked my car this morning. I knew I wouldn't finish my work day until well after dark, and I relished the opportunity to move the car closer so I wouldn't have to walk a long distance in the rainy conditions which were likely after dusk.

I hadn't got 20 feet from the door when I noticed a man with a briefcase standing on the sidewalk, looking around himself with obvious confusion. He was my age or older, but he hadn't aged well. The first clue was his full beard, at least a foot long in any direction, such a light grey that it might as well be white. He had on a cheap blue blazer, blue-and-white plaid trousers, and a white shirt without a tie. To top it off he had a blue baseball cap. At least he was color coordinated.

I walked up to him thinking that he was obviously lost in this canyon of brick buildings and trees and sidewalks going every direction, and as I approached he turned and focused on me.

"Excuse me" he said. "Is this the campus library building?"

"No", I said. "But if you follow this path between the buildings about a hundred yards, you'll find yourself at the north door of the Library. You have to cross the quad, but there are no turns."

"I see", he said. "Thank you. Can you tell me where the Martin Luther King Day lecture will be held?"

"I'm sorry, I have no knowledge of that lecture. I'm afraid I can't help you there."

"Never mind, I can find it from the Library."


As we talked, I focused on his blue baseball cap. It said VIETNAM VETERAN and it had little flag-shaped images representing Vietnam War Campaign and Service medals.

"Excuse me, but what unit were you in, in Vietnam?" I asked him.

He straightened up. Not quite a military bearing, but one less reminiscent of a grandfather, more like a soldier as he proudly said:

"Twenty Fifth Infantry, a Mech unit. Cu Chi".

"Tropical Lightening!", I said. "You're a long ways from Schofield Barracks. I was an Infantry Platoon Sergeant operating out of Dian in the Big Red One until they rotated back home, and then I was a REMF in the 25th Admin. Company in Cu Chi during the last half of my tour, in 1970."

He looked me straight in the eye, put his hand out for a shake. As he took my hand, he said "Welcome Home".


Welcome home, Brother" I said as I shook his hand. "Be well."

No other words were spoken, nor needed. We turned, parted, on our way to our respective destinations.

I've finally processed out of The Nam.

"Freedom has a taste, and for those who have fought for it, the taste is so sweet the protected will never know it."

-- General George S. Patton

Hot Gun! WOOOOOO-EEEeeeeeeee! Hot Gun!

DOWN RANGE TELEVISION with Michael Bane - Show #1: 1-ON-1 with Todd Jarrett


Michael Bane and Todd Jarrett met at Blackwater in North Carolina today to determine just how fast the World Champion IPSC shooter (Todd, not Michael) can shoot 1,000 rounds of .45acp through a box-stock Para USA PXT 1911 SSP.


[Note that the link listed above is for a stainless pistol. The pistol used in the video was not stainless, but rather a blued finish steel pistol. And it didn't appear to have a fiber optic front sight. Not that it mattered because most of the rounds were fired without using the front sight.]

Not surprising, you get to see a World Record on DRTV!

(Click on the title bar to watch the 24-minute four-part video.)

Actually, the video takes more time to watch than Jarrett took to shoot the 1,000 rounds. I personally find this a fascinating test of both man and machine.

The video was "obviously ... played ... for laughs", and Jarrett was having fun with it. For a while.

Starting in a standard 2-handed shooting position, within 100 rounds he switched to an unconventional 'shoot from the waist' style. As the gun heated up (and the strain on his trigger finger became painful), Jarrett was trying other styles: pulling the trigger with his middle finger, then holding the gun in his right hand as he used the 'simulated full-auto' technique of bouncing the trigger with fingers on his left hand.

After 200 rounds Jarrett began shouting "Hot Gun! Hot Gun!" and, in a manner reminiscent of Howard Dean, shouting "WOOOO-EEEeeeeee! Hot Gun! Hot Gun!"

The test started out with 20 single-stack 10-round magazines (ten Para mags, ten Chip McCormick mats). Dan Arnold was picking up the discarded magazines, and there were three people reloading the 230-grain ball .45acp ammo into the magazines as quickly as they could.

By about 800 rounds, Jarrett was pounding the butt of the pistol on the bench, shouting "More Ammo! More Ammo!"

What with some magazines being short-loaded (well, one of them anyway), the magazine contained 2 rounds that were fired with the left hand.

Time? 10 minutes, 40+ seconds.

I've seen some fast shooting of a lot of rounds in my time, mostly in the Dundee Croc Match, but that was not a valid comparison. Never have I seen 1,000 rounds fired through a pistol in that short a time. (Heck, never in a single day!)

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that heat build-up is the most torturous test of reliability in any gun, let along a pistol. I believe that entirely. In USPSA matches conducted during the summer months, when it can take an hour to complete one stage and start again on the next stage, I've been known to pack my pistol in the ice chest between stages just to cool it down so I could hold and fire it. Note that this experience involved shooting something like 60 rounds a stage.

Shooting 1,000 rounds in 10+ minutes? I wouldn't want to do it not matter what the weather. Although it was cold in North Carolina during this January test, I doubt it significantly affected the heat build-up of the pistol.

Note that the three reloaders couldn't keep up with the shooter. It's entirely possible that the newly established Ten Minute standard could be beaten, with another reloader or two.

But I don't know how many shooters would / could stay with the gun under those conditions. And no gun that I own is likely to function with 100% reliability. That's right, as nearly as I could tell there were zero malfunctions. There were some breaks in the continuity, if malfs did occur I didn't see them (and Bane mentioned that there no were feeding failures; see quote below).

Doesn't matter, really. That's the kind of reliability which will make or break the gun you choose for competition, or for personal defense.

As Michael Bane says:

"What will really cause a gun to fail, is HEAT! Heat is the enemy of guns. How do you generate heat, all of the little explosions going on in the chamber there -- when you put a thousand rounds going through a gun that quickly, you are generating a huge amount of heat. If the gun is going to fail in use, it's going to fail there.

Now take a look here. [close-up of the gun barrel.] Barrel's changed color. Heat's changed the color of the barrel. A little finish wear on the end of the slide.

But you saw it. A thousand rounds went through the gun as fast as Todd Jarrett could pull the trigger, and Todd Jarrett can pull the trigger faster probably than any other living human being. The gun never malfunctioned, the gun never failed to fire, the gun never ... stopped ... functioning. It always went bang, and that is what you want from a handgun.

So, the next time you see some guys in lab coats, and they actually have a big bowl of soup where they have like potatoes and carrots and leeks and onions, and they're boiling up guns in it? Remember, that's not a test. That's not a torture test.

A thousand rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger, that's a torture test. "

Update: 18-JAN-2008
The Shooting Wire has the story here.

Is This For Real?

Found while idly surfing the net:

Hot Shooting Tide Women Beat 'Cocks by B.J. Millican
Associated Press

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) - Camilla Blands scored 15 points on
5-of-7 shooting and Alabama opened Southeastern Conference play
with a 65-54 win over South Carolina Thursday night after going
winless in the league last season.
The Crimson Tide (8-8) shot 56 percent from the floor, while
holding the Gamecocks to 36 percent shooting.

Gun's link to Police Department Raises Concerns

Kimber America has come out with a 'hot new' SIS pistol (for LAPD's Special Investigation Section, see pistol video download here).

The Baltimore Sun cites concerns that selling a gun named for "an elite group of plainclothes detectives with a history of fatally shooting suspects" might in itself be problematic for LAPD and the city of Las Angeles, California.

"It is very disturbing," said [City of Las Angeles] Councilman Jack Weiss. "If any member of the public is shot with one of these guns, or heaven forbid a cop is shot with one of these guns, what would be the explanation?"

I don't know. How about "I told him to stop, and he started shooting at me, so I shot him!" Or "He was in the wrong place and wasn't prepared for trouble."

As if the LAPD isn't capable of getting into trouble all by itself, now they think they could 'get into trouble' if someone is shot by one of these handguns.

The name, and association, is actually a unilateral marketing ploy by Kimber. They have pledged $15 to a charitable institution associated with the LAPD.

LAPD officials said the department does not endorse the gun and has no control over how the gun maker markets the weapon. Police Chief William J. Bratton dismissed questions about the LAPD's role in the sale of the weapons as a "nonissue," calling it "foolish."

Capt. Kyle Jackson, head of the Robbery Homicide Division, who oversees SIS, said the department did not request that the SIS initials be placed on the guns. And, he said, Kimber did not need the department's permission to sell the weapons.

"It isn't trademarked," Jackson said. "No one at the LAPD is profiting from this. This is not an endorsement."

America's gun culture - fading slowly? Bernd Debusmann | Reuters

America's gun culture - fading slowly?

One of my favorite leisure time activities is Fisking Reuters. In case you are an American and you are not familiar with Reuters, be advised that they are Not From Around These Parts. In fact, they may be reliably considered to be antagonistic to American values.

In case you are dubious about my last statement, let's take a look at what this fellow with the excess of consonants in his name has to say about the state of firearms ownership in America ... a continent with which he doesn't appear to have a personal familiarity:

Is America, land of shooting massacres in schools and public places, slowly falling out of love with guns?

The answer is yes, and it runs counter to popular perceptions of the United States as a country where most citizens are armed to the teeth and believe it is every American's inalienable right to buy an AK 47-style assault rifle with the minimum of bureaucratic paperwork.

But in fact, gun ownership in the United States has been declining steadily over more than three decades, relegating gun owners to minority status.

At the same time, support for stricter gun controls has been growing steadily and those in favor make up a majority.

You will note that no source for these opinions are ever cited in this article. It is characteristic of Reuters that 'Opinion Pieces' are never identified as such; rather, they are comfortable with presenting the rankest assertions without citing sources for their conclusions. The article mentions "...University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC), which has been tracking gun ownership and attitudes on firearms since 1972, the longest-running survey on the subject in the United States ...", but we are given no link to any definable study. In fact, searching that title we find no project which addresses the subject at all.

The number of households with guns dropped from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006, according to NORC, and the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun has shrunk to just under 22 percent.

So, by the rules of democratic play, one might assume that the majority would have major influence on legislation. But that's not how it works, thanks to the enormous influence of the gun lobby.

The long-term decline monitored by the Chicago survey has buoyed proponents of tighter gun controls. "America's gun culture is fading," says Josh Sugarmann, who heads the Washington-based Violence Policy Center.

Not only do the cited statistics not render themselves immediately obvious, but the cited cross-reference ... the Violence Police Center ... is notorious for its agenda-driven anti-gun policy.

Note the difference in the way the two opposing organizations are referenced:

• Gun Rights organizations = "The Gun Lobby"
• Anti-Gun Rights Organizations = "Proponents of Tighter Gun Controls"

Lobbyists vs organizations. No 'yellow journalism' here, folks.

According to Sugarmann, those keeping the culture alive and those most vocal in resisting tighter regulations are white, middle-aged men whose enthusiasm for firearms, hunting and shooting is not shared by younger Americans.

...

To what extent gun ownership will continue to shrink depends, at least in part, on a decision by the U.S. Supreme court expected this summer. The court will rule on one of the most acrimonious disputes in the United States: do Americans have the constitutional right to own and bear arms?

Here, the attempt to demonize firearms ownership is reinforced by an oblique attack on the two most obvious groups in American society today: "Baby Boomers" and "WASPs" ("white, middle-aged men"). If this article targets, for example, "young black men" or "Aged Asian Men" or "middle-aged Muslim Men", the outcry would be enormous. But to target "... white, middle-aged men whose enthusiasm for firearms, hunting and shooting is not shared by younger Americans ..." is societally acceptable. At least, acceptable by the people who read Reuters. (Note that the sub-division of "... men whose enthusiasm for firearms, hunting and shooting is not shared by younger Americans ..." apparently makes this bias definition acceptable, even if it is not supported by any source reference.).

Virginia Tech was the worst school shooting in U.S. history and rekindled the debate over the easy availability of guns in America. There are more private firearms in the United States than anywhere else in the world -- at least 200 million.

While that arsenal has been growing every year, the proportion of U.S. households where guns are held has been shrinking. In other words: Fewer people have more guns.

One estimate, by the National Police Foundation, says that 10 percent of the country's adults own roughly three quarters of all firearms.

It may be significant that an Internet Search on the phrase "National Police Foundation" returned only references to "Islamabad" and "Pakistan".

It's not clear what American organization may exist by this name. Perhaps Reuters does not intend to mislead the reader.

PREVENTION, NOT CURE

That is the hard core, which counts on the gun lobby, chief of all the National Rifle Association (NRA), to throttle attempts to impose restrictions on the sale of firearms.

The NRA, a group that claims some 3 million members, calls itself "America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights" and backs candidates for political office on their stand on one issue -- gun ownership -- regardless of party affiliation.

This is not to be compared to, for example, NEA (the National Education Association), which backs candidates according to their stand on one issue -- higher wages for teachers.

Or AARP ... The American Association of Retired Persons ... which backs candidates according to ther stand on one issue -- support for special governmental considerations for retired people.

Or NARAL ("National Abortion Rights Action League", which on its website is so shy about what it actually stands for that on all of its websites only identifies itself as (for example) "Pro-Choice America".
(Apparently, NARAL is too embarrassed by their societal stance to actually SAY what they stand for. How many articles, we wonder, have we read this year in Reuters about killing unborn children? Google it yourself.)

While Reuters obviously feels confident in demonizing the NRA for it's "one-issue" agenda, one wonders whether they intend to similarly attack other "one-issue" organizations.

Politicians tend to pander to the NRA, some more shamelessly than others. One of the Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential race, Mitt Romney, went so far as to falsely claim that he was a lifelong hunter and had received an official NRA endorsement in 2002.

Politician lie ... and it's the fault of the NRA.

Small wonder, then, that the debates following every shooting massacre tend to focus not on the easy availability of guns but on preventive security measures.

The "easy availability of guns" is a given. Criminals will have them, law-abiding citizens may or may not have them, but will be less likely to carry them. This tends to put law-abiding citizens into a category which we may call "TARGETS" or "VICTIMS", and criminals find them more easy to predate "TARGETS" or "VICTIMS" than to attack armed citizens. In fact, if more law-abiding citizens were legally authorized to arm themselves in the areas where "shooting massacres" occurred, fewer law-abiding citizens may find themselves to be "TARGETS" or "VICTIMS".

Just a thought. I could be wrong. However, 99.9% of perpetrators of 'shooting massacres' seem to find it obvious that the best place to find "TARGETS" or "VICTIMS" is a public place where the public is not allowed to carry a weapon. I'm sure that Reuters finds this to be a non-sequitor. But just to carry the thought process to its logical conclusion, when was the last time you read about a predator who successfully shot up a shooting range, a gun store, or a police station (outside of "The Terminator" movie)?

Reuters does, however, find one or two American innovations encouraging:

Metal detectors at the entrances of shopping malls, for example. Or bullet-proof backpacks. They were developed in the wake of the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, where two teenagers killed 12 students and teachers and then themselves.

The Columbine-inspired backpacks went on sale in August and have sold briskly. "Sales picked up considerably in the Christmas period," said Mike Pelonzi, one of the two men -- both fathers -- who designed and market them. "Our market is expanding."

Great. As long as you are running away, and the predator is a good enough shot to hit you in your backpack, and you are wearing a bullet-proof backpack ... chances are that you may live through the experience.

Or, you could just shoot the bastard and stop him from shooting the poor schmucks whose parents can't afford to buy you a bullet-proof backpack.

UPDATE:
Here's the fall-out from another of author BBernd Debusmann's articles.

Syd, on the Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban

Syd, at "The Snubnose Files" (was "Front Sight, Press"; was "News from The Sight 1911") offers this commentary on the U.S. Government reaction to the Supreme Court's evaluation of the Washington D.C. "Heller" gun ban case:

Volume 279, 1/12/08

While I try to avoid doing too much direct politics in this newsletter, except as it relates to gun rights and law, I feel compelled to express my utter outrage at the Bush administration’s filing of an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Washington DC handgun ban. According to the Washington Post, the government’s brief includes the following, “The court’s decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of ‘Arms’ that can be traced back to the Founding era,” the government argued. “If adopted by this court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns.” Sorry guys, but it’s the Second Amendment itself that “casts doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation,” and not any decision by a court.

Government is jealous of its power and it seems that parties and promises get thrown under the bus when the rubber meets the road. I am truly and profoundly disappointed.

While I don't disagree in principle (or in detail, for all that) with anything that Syd says, and while I am equally outraged, I don't share his sense of outrage.

Perhaps I'm more cynical, or more pessimistic, but I'm not at all surprised at this federal response.

I expected it, and maybe you did, too.

Think about it.

If the Supremes entirely throw out the D.C. handgun laws (which actually affect possession of all firearms, including 'long guns' ... although they are not specifically addressed in "Heller"), then the United States Government must revisit all federal firearms laws, and justify them under this 'new' interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Historically, we have often cited the "twenty thousand firearms laws in America" when stating the case that these x-number of laws have not proven effective in reducing the number of crimes committed with firearms in the various municipalities, counties, states, etc. which constitute the United States of America.

On the other hand, there are some laws which many of us, perhaps even most of us, consider to be 'acceptable'. Among these are laws which restrict firearms possession by felons and insane persons ... those who have been shown to constitute a threat to public safety. Yes, there are a lot of grey areas in that broad definition. Let us assume that we all recognize that some people just shouldn't have guns, and admit to the common "YMMV" ("Your Mileage May Vary") rhetorical devise which acknowledges that each individual may have different definitions of the terminology "some people".

All of that having been acknowledged, and either accepted or rejected as your personal beliefs may accommodate ...

... if the D.C. Gun Laws are rejected without demure by the Supreme Court, ALL GUN LAWS may be contradicted, and ALL GUN Laws musts be revisited in either the Legislature or the Federal Courts.

If you think that's not such a bad idea, I agree with you. But in the interim, it may not be entirely acceptable. Consider the situation where there are no restrictions on firearms ownership. This might allow Felons and other people who demonstrably should not have guns to legally acquire them.

Until a much more reasonable set of firearms ownership laws can be established, it MAY not be universally acceptable that 'everyone' be able to buy a firearms.

It MAY not be universally unacceptable for some firearms restrictions to remain in place, until they have been individually addressed and either accepted or modified to meet the strict accordance with the Second Amendment ... hopefully, one which meets a practical test of the Second Amendment rather than a 'political' test.

Personally, I would have been not only surprised, but appalled, if the Federal Government didn't enter into this controversy.

This is probably a case where the old rules are notionally thrown out, but held in abeyance while all parties avail themselves of the opportunity to re-negotiate new, more reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership/possession.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the Feds to say "Wait A Minute! Let's Talk This Over!"

I only think it's unreasonable if either party insists that a 'compromise' means that we give them everything, and they give us nothing.

Let us see what comes of the dialogue. After all, it's the first opportunity we've had for a real dialogue since 1934.

Ohio Classifier Calculator

UPDATE: 14 April, 2008
This link is obsolete. see here for the current link.


The Ohio Percentage Calculator is down. Please see here (Georgetown Classmates site) for the the same functionality.

No telling how long this link works, but I'll try to follow the threads (thanx to the Brian Enos Forum) to keep this valuable tool available.

In the meantime, I've changed sidebar link, which once was "Ohio Classification Percentage Calculator", to "Classification Percentage Calculator".

If this (or any other link) dies, please let me know by sending an email to the email at the bottom of the page.

And if you can spare a few bucks, please click on the "Make A Donation" button on this webpage.

Remember our mantra:

"Classifiers are Boring!
"They get much more interesting when you screw up."

Best Use for Preperation H

Municipalities can't ban people from owning handguns, court rules

Is this delicious or what?

SF Gate, San Francisco's Premium Libricat Website, is forced by the newsworthiness of the story to report that Proposition 'H' has been judged unconstitutional.

We knew it years ago (later, here), and they're finally getting the word?

Priceless!

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.