If it can happen to me, it can happen to anybody

NRA & Katrina
There are so many titles I could have put on this article.

These are the stories of New Orleans Firearms confiscations, and while I am disinclined generally to tout the NRA ... sometimes, you need a national organization to help fight for your civil rights.

In the enduring aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we are still seeing the reciprocations of illegal firearms confiscations in New Orleans ... years ago.

Although some legislation has resulted from the illegal firearms confiscations in New Orleans, we are left with the images and New Orleans.

Never again.

Encoded Ammunition: ACS vs NRA Part I

While researching this subject, I've found that I'm not the only blogger searching for more information.

Call Me Ahab has found a series of YouTube which (as far as I can tell) document the NRA's online logger interviews with Russ Ford, from Ammunition Coding Systems, discussing their 'sole source' technology.

This appears to be a five-part interview, and I admit that I haven't viewed any except the first part at this time. However, it occurred to me that there exist no transcripts to this interview.

Therefore, I present links to the Call Me Ahab original links to the five part interview, the You Tube link to the first (9:49 minute) segment of the interview, and the transcript of that segment which I have compiled.

ACS Transcript 1 of 5. (A 40KB DOWNLOAD)

If you experience problems downloading this file, or if you require a different format other than MS-WORD v-2003, Please let me know so that I can provide the information in a different formatn.

Also, please note that my transcription skills are admittedly less than perfect, and the sound on the original video is imperfect. Thus, there are some short segments which I found to be unintelligible; these are noted in the transcript as some variation of "(******)", and you can interpret them as you will.

These unintelligible passages are not common, but they do occur. You will have to translate them as seems most likely to your own ear.

Considering that it has required about two hours to transcribe the first 10-minute video, you can expect that it will take me five working days to transcribe the entire5-part interview.

Also, make no assumptions about the accuracy of the quotes provided; this is the best effort I can honestly make, but it's possible that there are errors. If you care to send corrections, I will note them in a future update but also note that your interpretation is "dubious". No reflection on you, but if I can't understand the verbiage I can't warrant that your interpretation of a flawed source is accurate.

We're all just trying to understand the situation, which is confusing at best.

(Note also that I don't guarantee that I'll manage to transcribe all 5 videos. I'm not getting paid for this stuff, and it's too much like work for me to willingly accept it as a duty.)

Bulltwaddle

My last post, an encouragement for a prospective New Shooter's intention to go through a USPSA Certification Course and join us in USPSA competition, has apparently been misinterpreted. My fault, and I apologize if I've been unclear.

This evening I found the following comment:

If you folk can't have fun with nothing BUT encouragement for new members, it's no wonder that some of those leagues are falling on hard times.

In general, I agree with this statement.

I have participated in competitive shooting sports which make it difficult for a new shooter to enjoy the experience. For example, I shot .22 Caliber Gallery Rifle (indoor rifle precision marksmanship at fifty feet) during Junior High, High School and College. I did fairly well and achieved the rating of Expert when I was 18.

After I graduated, I went into the army for two years. When I came out I found a club in the town where I was then living and signed up for both club membership and participation in their 'League' competition.

Shooting as an adult, rather than as a junior or in the non-scholastic club in my home town, I discovered that not everyone was as welcoming of new shooters, nor as conscientious in observing the etiquette required in any sporting activity, as had been my previous experience.

In this context, "etiquette" consisted in such simple, obvious forms as not engaging in loud conversation just behind the firing line while other competitors (even team-mates) are shooting. I found this to be very distracting, and when I asked for silence my polite request was rewarded by indignation and hostility. The team captain was among the worst of the offenders.

Another annoying experience was that, when I was shooting for score in a postal match (on our home range), other team members seemed to think nothing of setting up next to me on the firing line by dropping their shooting match on the dusty concrete floor, kicking up billowing clouds of dust and gunpowder residue. This fine grit gets into your eyes, nose and throat causing tearing, coughing and congestion. It is impossible to ignore these distractions during precision shooting, and complaints again were, at best, ignored.

Etiquette is nothing more than respect for your fellow shooters, plus the un-written rules of the range.

Golfing etiquette, for another example, includes allowing the golfer whose ball is on the green but farthest away from the pin to go first; this permits them a smooth green, which has not been trampled by cleated shoes.

So when I speak of the etiquette of Practical Shooting, it includes being ready to shoot when it is your turn, so that the match does not suffer needless delays; doing your share of the work on a range (taping cardboard targets, resetting steel targets, etc.); not congregating in front of the safety table in BS sessions to the point where those who need to bag or unbag pistols, or perform minor immediate maintenance cannot get to the table.

For a new shooter, these points of etiquette are not intuitively obvious from reading the rule book. The certification courses usually include a 'range segment' where the instructor may mention concerns of etiquette, but they are not usually stressed because the time available is usually so limited that almost all of it is used in teaching safety and gun-handling, plus the application of competition rules.

It is often up to the experienced competitors to welcome new shooters, insure that their current and future participation is a positive, safe and fun experience, help them to understand the competitive requirements of each stage, teach them the little things which are not possible to teach during Certification, and assure them that any support they need to get through the day without problems is immediately available without criticism and without making them feel any more self-conscious than they do already.

I can't speak for other clubs, of course, but in the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) we do these things very well because we actively recruit new shooters and we want them to keep coming back. We all enjoy the sport, we think everyone who has a pistol and wants a place to have fun using it is assured of a safe, wholesome environment.

At some clubs in CCS the person who is shooting his or her first match is assigned an experienced shooter in the squad to work with and coach the new shooter. At Tri-County Gun Club in Sherwood this is a formal process.

At the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club this is informal, consisting of the Match Director asking an experienced shooter in each squad to help the individual beginner.

And at Dundee ... they know they don't have to ask anyone person in particular to help a NuGuy because they realize that everyone in the squad is more than willing to do whatever is necessary.

(At COSSA, in Bend, nothing is said or implied; a new shooter is simply swamped with folks whose primary concern is the benefit and encouragement of anyone they don't personally know to be an experienced competitor.)

In short, in CCS, we not only actively encourage new shooters and provide them as much training as we can before they shoot their first matches, but every individual competitor on the range is willing to take time away from their own competitive preparations to support the new shooter.


We are all there to enjoy the day in CCS, and everyone who cares to join us is as welcome as a sunny day in December.

If there's a dark side to this process, it's that USPSA folks are as fun-loving as Dolphins, and you will see friends teasing friends at every opportunity. This may be off-putting for some folks, but new shooters are universally treated with respect and a growing sense of camaraderie until, sometimes, they find themselves being gently teased by others in the squad. Frankly, we are aware that running & gunning is serious business and safety is the primary and most important factor anytime anyone picks up a gun. Even though we are serious about safety, that doesn't mean we have to be solemn about it.

We often see people show up for matches about whom we know nothing; we don't know what kind of people they are, we don't know anything about their ability to handle a pistol safely, and we don't know how sensitive they are about their personal dignity. In a way, it's like the first day at a nudist colony; either you fit in, or you don't.

If you don't fit in, you will know and we will know.

If you are unable to keep the basic rules of gun-handling safety paramount in your mind and still perform the basic competitive functions, by the end of the day you will know and we will know.

If you are a person who does not love yourself and who does not love others, by the end of the day you will know and we will know.

If you are there to learn how to kill people rather than to enjoy shooting competition, by the end of the day you will know and we will know.

But if you are there because you love shooting, and are looking for a way to measure your own skills against others who are using the same kind of equipment, then this is the purpose of IPSC/USPSA and you will know and we will know.

Fortunately, almost nobody who shows up for a match has missed being screened out by the Certification Course, so this is very rarely a problem. In 25 years of IPSC and USPSA competition, I have seen less than a half-dozen people who fit these categories, and they are self-screening. That is, nobody ever says: "we don't want you here". We're willing to work with you if you encounter problems. Those very rare individuals who have private agenda decide that they are not comfortable with the very-safe, very-friendly environment they find here.

For what it's worth, if you are a new shooter and you're self-conscious at your first match, then you are going through exactly the same thing that every one of us has experienced. We know that,

If you are terribly concerned that you will violate some safety measure, we're glad to see you because we have ALL experienced this self-doubt. The key is experience. In order to gain experience, you need to shoot some matches. You'll probably make some mistakes, but be assured that very few people make inexcusable mistakes on their first match.

The ultimate sin, if there is one, is to be unsafe. The penalty is a Match Disqualification ('DQ'); I've seen a few DQ's of new shooters, and it's discouraging. However, I've only seen one shooter DQ on his first match, and he came back to compete successfully in subsequent matches.

When you violate a safety rule, you are "DQ'd" and are not permitted to shoot any more at that match. You are determined to have been 'unable to shoot safely at this match'. That's all. Because Safety Rules are a belt and suspenders process, it is very rare that anyone has actually endangered anyone on the range. We usually stop you before it gets to that point.

In fact, I recently posted about a Range Officer who stopped a 'new shooter' who was obviously about to violate a range safety rule. We're that invested in encouraging new shooters, that we make a conscious effort to prevent you from erring.

I have personally DQ'd on three separate occasions, and I can attest that it is personally embarrassing. But it is survivable for everyone and the most healthy response is to recognize that you screwed up, understand how you screwed up, and make it your personal goal to never screw up in the same way again.

To get back to the original premise:

If you folk can't have fun with nothing BUT encouragement for new members, it's no wonder that some of those leagues are falling on hard times.

Well, yes.

But you see, in USPSA we're not a bunch of a**hats whose idea of fun is to haze the nuguy. We're responsible gun-owners who want a venue where we can safely shoot our pistols (and AR's and Shotguns) and who recognize that the best way we can insure our personal Right to Keep and Bear Arms is to grow our membership. We can best do this by enlisting new members who have the same values and priorities. We're out to prove that firearms are not just for killing, as the Gun-Grabbers would have it be assumed, but that competition is a legitimate use of even the most exotic type of firearms.

Sure, we want as many members as we can scarf up; but not at the expense of safe, responsible firearms ownership.

There's nothing more expensive to us than a member who is a crazed, irresponsible, incompetent gun-owner. We don't encourage this kind of person, and we don't think anyone should.

By the same measure, we understand that the kind of competition we do requires the highest level of competency possible. Most folks who are just beginning to shoot don't have the skills required for run-&-gun competition, so we teach these skills ... and we encourage them, we require them, we enforce them.

We're not elitist. We know that most folks have a lot to learn, but we're patient. We won't abide irresponsibility, but we also realize that new shooters have the desire to learn, the commitment to excel, and an innate integrity which will not allow them to err without a strong sense of having let themselves down, and having let their friends down.

If you consider this Bulltwaddle, then I can only suggest that my earlier comments have given the wrong impression, and for that I (again) apologize.

And if you want to learn how to shoot safely in the most balls-to-the-wall, X-sports environment available with a gun in your hand, I encourage you to give USPSA/IPSC a try.

You may not succeed, but I assure you that if you do, you will KNOW that you within the 90% of people on this earth who are caring, responsible, rational human beings.

This is a No Bulltwaddle zone.

(Can anyone create an icon for that? I would be grateful for our contribution.)

New Shooters: Personal Note to Peter

Peter, I know you're out there and that you're reading this article.

Buy the gun from Mac. Come shoot with us. Learn the real meaning of Humility.


We've all been there, we've all learned that brassing (picking up expended cartridges) for the other competitors in our squads is part of the experience.

But we encourage you to share the competitive experience, because IPSC/USPSA competition is so much more than just shooting.

There is an element of 'etiquette' involved, and if seems like "hazing" I assure you, personally that it is not.

We ALL brass for our brothers (and our 'sisters'), and our priority for new shooters is to teach them the safety rules, and to teach them how to be accepted by your fellow shooters.

Safety, first.

Then Etiquette.

Then the other stuff, such as being aware of how squads share the work (Taping, Brassing, and resetting Steel Targets).

We enjoy the company of new friends.

Five Myths of Ammunition Encoding

A couple of days ago (March 25, 2008), Kim DuToit wrote about the "Encoded Ammunition" phenomena which has been the 'Media Darling' of various State Legislatures for the past two months (and more).

(See here for a summary of "Encoded Ammunition" articles on this blog.)

Note: The Ammunition Accountability website currently (as of 3.28.08) lists 16 states in which Encoded Ammunition bills have been introduced. By the time you read this, the number may have increased ... but so far more than 20% of the United States of America have elected legislators who are ready and willing to sell out their constituents in the interest of appearing to be "Strong on the Gun Violence Issue". Do not, ever, vote for any state legislature who sponsors these bills. They are Not Your Friend.

As I read the Kim article, I was impressed by the unjustifiable confidence of both Kim and the people who commented on the article. They seemed to assume that if these bills were enacted into law, it would be 'easy' to undermine its enforcement.

This leads me to present the "Five Myths of Ammunition Encoding":

1: These laws only apply to factory produced ammunition; if I'm reloading, I don't have to abide by these laws.

Wrong.

The role of "Ammunition Manufacturer" is not defined in these bills.

If you reload your own ammunition, there is nothing in these bills to exempt you from being classified as an "Ammunition Manufacturer". The implication (easily interpreted by the Legislator or Executive who has no love for firearms) is that you must abide by the same rules as, say, Federal, Winchester, Remington, etc. You must encode every bullet, and if you don't manufacture the bullet you must buy encoded bullets from bullet manufacturers.

And if you do cast your own bullets, they must still be encoded.

2. If I do reload, I can buy encoded bullets and, by using only these bullets, I am in compliance with the laws.

Wrong.

In the majority of bills presented in the (so far) 16 infected states, the bills require that not only the bullet, but the cartridge case as well must be encoded with the same identifying number. Do you have any idea how expensive this is? Not only for Federal, Remington, Winchester et al but for you?

If you reload, assume that the cases you reload already have encoding numbers. If you have two numbers in the case (assuming you have the manufacturing facilities to meet the law) are you in compliance? Probably not, which implies that you can NOT re-use cases which have already been encoded.

3. These laws will not be enforced, because it's too costly and too time-consuming of LEO's (who have better things to do) to be contemplated.

Wrong.

Any state Legislature which would be so mis-guided as to enact these bills into Law would be willing to require the existant police forces to enforce them.

The administrators of the police have no compunctions when it comes to mis-use of their officers. At the highest levels, it is easy to conclude that politics assume a higher priority over the solving of crimes. Do not persuade yourself that the police will embrace a higher moral value than do the law-makers; they are of the same family, and are willing to subsume civil responsibilities to political realities (in their political perspective). The people who reach administrative levels of Police Politics are those who embrace personal advancement rather than the support of the Common Good. When you assume moral priorities of governmental administrators you fool only yourself

4. The legislators who vote these bills into law are determined to use them for the purpose of solving crimes.

Wrong.

These are political issues, not civil. Not Crime Prevention, not Crime Solving, not Defense of the Common Good. If you assume the high moral values of Legislators, remember:
They're all Lawyers, and Politicians.

There is no lower common denominator to be defined within the definition of Civil Service.


5. These bills will never be passed into laws, because they are so obviously unworkable.

Wrong.

"Obviously unworkable bills" are the epitome of targets for Politician.

That a bill is infeasible means only that the legislators who enact them, and the administrators who service them, are held to no higher moral standard.

That the enacted law is infeasible means only that the Legislature is absolved of responsibility, because it is obvious that their moral stance has been undermined by trifling practical matters. They have assumed the moral high ground; that Technology is unable to meet the standards which they have promised is NOT the fault of Legislature. The Senate/Assembly/Whatever has done their part, and if the (single-vendor) business which the legislature believed proves to be unable to meet their bloated promises, the Legislature had Done Its Part.

From this point on, the failure to meet objectives is a Business Decision, not a Moral Imperative.

Because the Legislature doesn't do Moral Imperatives.

Fitna

(NTSF: (Not Safe For Work)

Or Home.

Or anywhere.



Fifteen minutes of shame.

Geert Wilders finally found a host.

UPDATE: 28-MAR-2008
I didn't see this coming: Live Leak has removed the FITNA film, and replaced it with an explanation.

That is, they had received so many lethal threats that they felt compelled to remove the film. They had intended its presentation to be a strike for freedom of speech, but "... in the end, the price was too high".

I'll let you imagine the source of the threats. My personal opinion is that the Radical Islamists in Britain and around the world reacted in what may be considered a by-now-predictable manner.

The result is that the statement of Geert Wilders has been silenced by the outrageous actions of a barbaric mob.

No, I was wrong. That was the effect. The result is that his implied condemnation of their barbarism has been proven by their own actions.

My greatest regret is that I had the opportunity to download the film, and it never occurred to me at the time that it would so speedily be censored by the murderous mob.

... so I went to You Tube, and found 'another version' of the film.

This is not identical to the LiveLeak version I presented here yesterday. I noted some significant differences.

First, although this version is identified on You Tube as 'the official English version', it is not. It's titled in a Germanic language, with English titles superimposed.

Also, the scenes are not as I remembered. There was much more footage in at least two segments ... the 9/11 sequence at the beginning, and at least one clerical rant half-way through. The beheading scene actually includes the raising of the decapitated head, which was mercifully absent in the earlier version (and I do wish I had not been exposed to that abomination.) The film was 5 minutes shorter than the earlier version, and some other scenes were also longer. I can't tell you what was absent, because I only watched the earlier version a half-dozen times during composition of this article.

Finally, the last few minutes were different. The earlier described the sound as 'ripping a page out of a telephone book' while this version describes it as 'ripping a page out of a book' with no more attempt to emphasize that it was NOT the result of actually damaging a Quaran. (sp)

I would rather have found an exact copy of the version I presented earlier, but I will be satisfied with this version.

And I DID download this version, before it can be 'removed' from the host.

You can download the 24MB 'FLV-format' ("Flash Video") file here. You may need to download FLV (free) or Real Player software (not so free) to play it. (You may need to download and install Java to play it too, if you don't already have it installed.)

But play it you can, and as of now the Radical Islamists can't shut down your right to hear speech which they would deny you.

UPDATE: 31-MAR-2008
Yuri at The Real Gun guys was more a realist than I was; he downloaded the original English version of the video. You can see it here.

I'm not sure that this film would ever have been considered very important to anyone, until the Islamists made it an issue by their insane rhetoric and death threats. They have, once again, made themselves more despicable than any "blasphemy" which may or may not be contained in the video. (Actually, there's nothing new in the video ... it's just a recap of the atrocities, threats and barbaric behavior of which we are already too aware.)

If you choose not to view the video, you might drop by there anyway and read the few comments.

AK-47 "types"

H/T The War On Guns:

ENNER, La. — The cake had been served and the children were jumping up and down in a big, inflatable castle when the birthday party turned to bedlam.

Clarence McGraw's jaw dropped as he saw the visitors coming, guns drawn. The screaming began.

Children ran everywhere in the courtyard of the low-income apartment complex; adults fell to the ground. Bullets flew. The killers wounded three youngsters, but for reasons police can't explain, it was 19-year-old McGraw they were after.

As McGraw lay in the center of the green square, the gunmen stood over him and fired again. He was shot 15 to 20 times in all.

A tragedy, no question.

How does the Media handle it?

On Saturday, Sept. 15, at the Glenwood Apartments in Kenner, Trinioucka Martin rose early and cooked all morning for her twin boys' birthday party — meatballs, fried chicken, baked macaroni, sandwiches. She had already ordered a cake with the youngsters' picture on it, hired a DJ, and rented the inflatable castle and house.

McGraw woke up at his aunt's house across a highway from the apartment complex and had a hankering for something sweet. He wanted some cake.

At the party, after the crowd had dispersed and the officers arrived, McGraw lay dead on the ground near a sewer grate, his torso and lower body riddled with bullet wounds. Balloons still floated from ribbon; the "Happy Birthday" banner still hung.

No arrests have been made. McGraw was buried in a $450 grave against a chain-link fence in a crumbling New Orleans cemetery. The mound of dirt above his casket is littered with rocks and bone fragments and teeth. There was no money for a marker.

.. The Media presupposes a charnel yard .. "littered with ... bone fragments and teeth."
I sincerely doubt it.

This is yellow journalism at its best. Or at its worst.

It causes the reader to doubt the veracity of the rest of the article.

UPDATE 28-MAR-2008:
The author of the article comments, swears that the "rocks and bone fragments and teeth" are indeed more than mere hyperbole.

I apologize for my skepticism, and strike the statement. (But not the statement of doubt ... it does have that effect.)

What about the Encoded Ammunition bills?

The NRA is doing its job ... as defined by the NRA:

TALLAHASSEE - Without debate, the Florida House gave the powerful gun lobby a major victory today by passing a bill to allow employees to take their guns to work - as long as the employee has a concealed weapons permit and the weapon is left in the car.

... as defined by the NRA.

(The most recent comment regarding Encoded Ammunition bills from NRA-ILA is dated January, 25, 2008.)

Has the NRA been bought by the UN?

UN Human Rights Council Maintains Standard of Excellence

To the sound of cheers, and by an overhwelming majority of 40 out of 47 votes, the UN Human Rights Council today elected Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the "Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize," as an expert advisor representing the Western world. And for its new Palestine expert, the council chose Richard Falk, who, like Ziegler, accuses the U.S. of being responsible for many of the world's ills and describes Israel in Nazi terminology.

[Emphasis added ... redundantly]

"Even within the benighted UN Human Rights council, today was a dark day for human rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring agency. "The very credibility of the UN human rights system is now at stake."

Well, there's nothing new about this.

Why in the world do we need these 'tards cluttering up Turtle Bay? For $29.95 we could throw the bastards diplomats out of our country and turn the neighborhood into a Saturday Market.

I'm in for $20.00

The Michael Bane Blog: TSA Stupidity Puts Pilots At Risk!

TSA Stupidity Puts Pilots At Risk!


Did you read the news articles about the armed airline pilot who put a round through the bulkhead while supposedly 'flying' the airplane? (Here is the original news story.)

Were you confused? Did you wonder why the Main Stream Media (MSM - you know, the newspapers and their internet equivalent) didn't give us enough information to properly evaluate the news? Did you jump to the conclusion that the pilot was mucking about with a loaded pistol, and was completely responsible for his negligence?

So did I. In fact, so did one of my most respected 'favorite bloggers', Xavier, as is noted in excruciatingly embarrassing detail here.

I give myself no credit for restraint; I might easily have been as critical of the pilot had I been swayed by the paucity of information available from the MSM.



Leave it to Michael Bane to wade through the incomplete early reports and uncited references to dig out the truth of the matter.

That is, that TSA regulations requires armed Flight Deck Officers to holster weapons AND PUT A PADLOCK THROUGH THE TRIGGER GUARD to secure the weapon. (Click on the link at the top of the page for the full Bane treatment.)

Bane rightly compares this with IPSC/USPSA safety regulations, and the absolute need to keep pistols (especially DAO) in holsters which completely cover the trigger. Instead, TSA encourages holstering a pistol with a round in the chamber and then attempting to insert the hasp of a padlock through the trigger guard to insure holster retention.

Look for a big shake-up in TSA ... again. Now that they have allowed Flight Deck Officers to carry weapons during flight, they need to start listening to people who know something about carrying loaded pistols and the best ways to keep the bang-switch protected.

In the meantime, consider this scenario: The FDO was holstering his pistol and locking it in place, as is required by the TSA regulations. Insertion of the padlock hasp bears upon the trigger, and the gun goes off ... resulting in a hole in the bulkhead.

What would have been the consequences if the pistol, rather than being pointed toward the port bulkhead, had been pointed at the controls or the pilot who was engrossed in the actual pre-landing piloting?

I think it speaks volumes for the FDO who knew enough to watch the muzzle.

And I wouldn't want to be responsible for the consequences if I had to (mandatory) put a padlock through the trigger-guard of a pistol cased in a (mandatory) exposed-trigger holster.

It can't be done ... safely.
________________________________
UPDATE: 31-MAR-2008
Xavier has this short article, accompanied by a video which shows just how EASY it is to cause a Negligent Discharge using the "Holstervault" holster for pistol retention.

The conclusion by Xavier is that " ... The problem with the shot that was fired through the skin of an A319 Airbus over Charlotte North Carolina is the responsibility of the man who caused the firearm to discharge. "

Well, yes. And no.

I agree that it IS the responsibility of the man with the gun in his hand to prevent Negligent Discharges, which is why I term it a "Negligent Discharge" (N.D.) rather than the more common term "Accidental Discharge" (A.D.). The FDO should have recognized that the arrangement was a certifiable POS and should have taken more care in handling the gun ... especially in the process which was obviously, as they say, "fraught with peril". Still, I take exception to the implied assignment of 100% of fault on the FDO, for several reasons.

Not least of the reasons for my seeming forgiveness of gun-handler error is that the pistol/holster/lockup combination was mandated by TSA; any reasonably competent firearms owner would have seen that there were design flaws, but the TSA refused to bend on this decision.

That still doesn't absolve the FDO, and it shouldn't He should have perceived the problematic nature of the combination, and have been more aware ... and therefore, more careful.

Add to this, though, the TSA regulatory requirement that the FDO must secure the firearm every time he leaves the flight deck, and then re-establish the firearm as an easily accessible resource upon his return (holster off the belt, padlock positioned secure the firearm in the holster; conversely, padlock removed, holster returned to belt.)

This feeds into what Micahel Bane has colloquially referred to as the "Futz Factor". Informally interpreted, this is the principle that "The more you futz around with your gun, the more likely that Something Bad Will Happen. (The precise definition of the term "Futz" is left as an exercise for the Student.)

Here we plainly see that the FDO has Futzed Around with his gun so frequently that it has become a matter of habit, and he has lost all sense of danger in this common occurrence. He has failed to perceive that the firearm has been cocked, and has been moved within the holster, and as a consequence he does not take the time or trouble to thoroughly insure that the gun is 'safe' before inserting the padlock. More, it has become a common practice which he feels confident that he can perform while he is flying the airplane.

Clearly, the FDO is not focusing his attention on the gun safety requirements which should be a significant event; instead, he is distracted and complacent.

His failure to properly assign securing the gun as his primary responsibility is inexcusable, but understandable. The TSA's regulations must be assigned some part of the responsibility for the resultant mishap, and it is left to pure dumb luck that the N.D. did not result in the wounding of the FDO, fatal damage to critical instruments in the console, or both.

TSA is responsible for the egregious procedures which are to be followed, and the abysmal equipment which it has mandated. More, it is responsible for the training and the lack of follow-up training afforded to the FDO.

While the individual is responsible for his own actions, the organization is responsible for equipment and training.

Both have failed miserably here, and until that fact is recognized and accepted we cannot expect
that the failure will not recur.

XL650 comes back from the doctor

You may recall that on March 01, 2008, I wrote "XL650 Goes To The Doctor", explaining just WHY I sent my (15 year old) Dillon reloading press back to the manufacturer for repair and refurbishing.

For those of you who are disinclined to follow the link, here is a summary of the mechanical problems I was experiencing ... not intermittently, but with every darn round:

1. the shell plate wouldn't index consistently, leading to
2. the primer plate never lined up with the primer pocket of the cartridge, and
3. the primer plate wouldn't index anyway, because the primer return cam spring was too weak, and
4. the killer was that the cartridge slide cam wouldn't move the brass into the next slot in the shell plate.

For every cartridge, I had to manually index the shell plate, push the case into the shell plate, index the primer plate and move the primer index lever to the next hole in the primer plate ... even though I knew darn well that wouldn't make it line up with the primer pocket for the next cartridge.

Well, it's old. I'm old, too, and I wish I could get myself refurbished as easily.

I had been fighting these conditions for over a year, because I was loath to take my reloading press out of service for who-knows-how-long; that would mean I couldn't load ammunition for the local club matches, so we (SWMBO and I) couldn't go shooting.

But when your ammunition reloading productivity degrades from 600 - 1000 rounds per hour to 60-100 rounds per hour, it's just not worth the frustration any more. I realized that I was procrastinating so bad, we were skipping matches anyway, just because I was unwilling to subject myself to the freezing Winter temperatures in the garage (where the reloading bench is located) long enough to load up the 300-400 rounds needed to compete in a club match.

When I called Dillon 3 weeks ago, they said they could complete the job and return the refurbished press in three weeks, and today I discovered that they were right. (There was some time lost in shipping to and back, and Fed-Ex needed a signature before they would deliver so I lost a day in the return when I came home last night and found a "we tried to deliver, but you need to sign this card" note on my front door.)

I signed the card last night, stuck it on my door this morning, and when I got home from work tonite the big box with the press in it was sitting on my doorstep.




When I opened the box and checked it out, I found that the shell plate, the primer assembly and the case insert slide were much tighter than I remembered them being. (Click on image to see the full-size image.)

The parts list takes up two pages.

the cost for labor was $0.00

The cost for parts was $76.95 ... and the "Applied Credit" was $76.95.

The total bill was $00.00, and I have a press that's just like new!

The press looks, at first glance, very like the way it looked when I sent it. There's some paint missing (just as it was when I sent it in), but the frame looks like new because it has all been cleaned much better than I ever managed.


I'm a little excited about this.

No, I'm not going to re-assemble the press on my bench and load 1,000 rounds of .38 Super ammunition tonight. The temperature in my garage at 6:30pm (when I got home) was 39 degrees, and the wind-chill factor was -6 degrees. It's my personal policy, established today, not to reconstruct loading presses and load ammunition when the temperature is within five degrees of freeze-my-ass-off. Maybe tomorrow, maybe this weekend, but not right NOW.

But I'm encouraged by the look and feel of the press, so I'll not likely let it sit in its box on the washing machine for too long.

I need ammo, and I have over a thousand rounds of brass that will be crying for attention as soon as it warms up.

When I get it set up, I'll take more pictures. Then I'll load a batch of ammunition and let you know whether the difference is dramatic or only 'just better'.


Most important, I'm impressed by Dillon's responsiveness. Most folks, I am given to understand, send their presses in for repair and refurbishment during the winter months. I sent mine in just before the Spring, and Dillon did their part well within the estimated time limit.

Of course, the Dillon Warranty is Legend, and they live up to their reputation every time. I have never been disappointed by them. (The only vendor I know, of any type, with as comprehensive and 'No BS' as Dillon, is STI.)

You won't be either, so if your press is as mucked up as mine was, don't hesitate to send it to them before the Practical Shooting Season gets into full swing.

You'll be glad you did.

The Other Side of '43'

Reviewing my Blog statistics, I see that I've received some traffic from 'Mausers, Medicine and Motorcycles' (specifically, this March 10, 2008, post).

The reference is embedded in this comment:

It turns out that there are statistics to back up my surmise. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. As for what’s happening on the streets, Foer quotes the FBI: "For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders. The expanding right to carry concealed guns make us even less safe."

See Cogito Ergo Geek for the answer to the "43 times" fallacy. And consider this: how many times have handguns dissuaded a violent act without resulting in the death of the potential attacker? Somehow I don't see you being happier if the ratio where 1:1.

I attempted to reply to MM&M in the COMMENTS section, but apparently the comments section was closed (without warning), and so my attempt to expand on the topic were foiled.

I'm a blogger; I am never foiled on the Internet, so I include my response here:

As the author of Cogito Ergo Geek, I appreciate your reference to my research.
http://tinyurl.com/3dtccq

Actually, the results of 'my research' are that the original article in the "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM) is no longer available.

That is to say, Kellerman's original article is no longer available on the NEJM website, and so those who quote him ... no matter how peripherally ... aren't really quoting him because they are unable to cite the source.

I've made the attempt many times, and I always end up frustrated because the NEJM has removed that article from their archive.

However, several referential articles remain, and these are the sources I've cited.

Generally, these are secondary sources. That is, they 'quote' studies who in turn 'quote' Kellerman ... or paraphrase him.

At this point, we are reduced to citing tertiary sources, which unanimously (as of this date) debunk Kellerman for his shoddy sampling techniques.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, I've attempted to establish the veracity of the original Kellerman study. Nobody seems willing to justify these statistics; rather, the citations are entirely critical of Kellerman and his '43 times more likely' assertions.

If the '43 times' theory was at all justifiable, given the attacks on the study over the past decade, one might reasonably expect the "anti-gun" proponents to replicate the study under conditions which were less vulnerable to constructive criticism.

That this study has not occurred (or that it HAS, but the results were so nonsupporting of the Liberal agenda that the results were never published) speaks volumes of the original 'study'.

If Kellerman's many supporters are unable to definitively defend his assertion, we can only conclude that it is indefensible.

Which is what I (and you) have already proposed.

The next time and every time you see the number '43' in some gun-control context, be secure in your confidence that the author is lying.

That's what they do, and will do, until someone confronts them.

College Students on the Second Amendment

I love college students!

As some of you may know, I work on a college campus and, under the circumstances, I find many situation in Campus Life which I deplore.

Among these are the distressing tendencies of college students to:

• clutter parking lots in the near vicinity of dormitories with discarded beer cartons and broken beer bottles;
• complain vociferously that "there are not enough parking spaces!";
• ride bicycles too fast and with no apprehension of the general Rules of the Road - bicyclists typically consider that whatever rules (pedestrian vs vehicular traffic) provides them the best advantage, that's the rule they rely upon.

I've been guilty of all these ego-centric attitudes when I was a student, so please understand that this merely represents the maundering of a cranky old man, but not a sincere criticism.

But this week, in response to DC vs HELLER, I was delighted to find that College Times recently presented an article which reminded me why college students are so enjoyable.

The original article merely presented a summary of the DC v HELLER controversy. I thought it was well-presented, concise and (if you will excuse the expression) 'balanced'.

(This was not the first time that College Times discussed the Second Amendment & 'Right to Carry' issues... c/f "The Facts behind Gun Control need to be cleared"; August 7, 2007, re: Virginia Tech and CCW.)

This current (March 20, 2008) article ("Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun") article only reports on the current DC v HELLER issues, in reference to the Supreme Court case.

Go there and read the commentary, as well as the comments.)

The proposition of this article seems to be that the 2nd Amendment is an "Individual Right", rather than a "Collective Right" applicable to formal Militias, such as the National guard. (There's a Leap of Faith involved here.)

While there seems to be a consensus in the comments, there is not unanimity of opinion. We should pay special attention to the(few) dissenting voices here.

I would like to pay special attention to one single dissenting voice, which (since there are no permalinks guaranteed on this website) I will cite in full:

"Joe Edwards: Freshman, Forestry" comments:
"Concealed Carry is unnecessary for Safety"

I have a response in regard to the column, "Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun," (CT, March 20).

Today's world presents times of tragedy and turmoil, regardless of the right to own or carry a handgun. While the second amendment does in fact permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is wonderfully inappropriate to assume the founding fathers meant for us to buy and keep firearms to keep criminals off the street.

It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally, but it has been proven that these so-called law-abiding citizens can quickly turn into psychopathic killers. It is crazy to think how gun supporters use mass shootings to promote the sale and use of guns when the killers bought the guns legally in the first place. This does not make me feel safe at all.

I have never felt threatened at all in my home or anywhere for that fact. I do not need a gun for safety. I can lock my doors and shut my windows. If there is such a need for guns, then why don't we sell the guns and make it impossible to get the ammunition? Then everyone could be happy. The gun enthusiasts could have their guns and the people who are out to shoot people can't get the ammunition they need to do it.

Joe Edwards
freshman, forestry

I draw your attention to certain phrases in this comment:

While the second amendment does in fact permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is wonderfully inappropriate to assume the founding fathers meant for us to buy and keep firearms to keep criminals off the street.

Well, yes. However, the Second Amendment postulates, by inference, that American Citizen may not be charged with purpose of the Second Amendment is to " ... keep criminals off the street."

That's the normative view of the purpose of Police, who are too few and too often too far away. If you want to defend yourself against criminal predators, the Second Amendment only serves to acknowledge that, in the absence of Police, you have the right to provide for your own personal defense.


Mr, Edwards also states:

"It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally, but it has been proven that these so-called law-abiding citizens can quickly turn into psychopathic killers."

Mr. Edwards not only fails to cite justification for this extremist Point of View, he has established an iconic statement which has been the subject of ridicule by websites which require more substantial authority than personal bigotry. In short, he has established his own personal '15 minutes of fame' by leveling unsubstantiated charges.

(I will not bother to address the statement that "... It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally...", except to note that "law-abiding citizens" must submit to background checks, while "other" "non-law-abiding citizens", do not typically concern themselves with any requirement to conform to current firearms-control laws.)

...

Skipping lightly over several more egregious opinions, Mr. Edwards concludes:

If there is such a need for guns, then why don't we sell the guns and make it impossible to get the ammunition? Then everyone could be happy. The gun enthusiasts could have their guns and the people who are out to shoot people can't get the ammunition they need to do it....

Ahhh .. there you reveal yourself to be a True Progressive Liberal, Joe.

You are entirely unconcerned with the intent of current Firearms Laws. Instead, you have your own personal agenda to pursue, and all other considerations pale in comparison.


If the Second Amendment guarantees the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", and you cannot discern a legal means to undermine it, then you are perfectly comfortable with starving that Constitutional Right by denying legal firearms owners the ammunition necessary to make the Civil Right work.

This is tantamount to saying: if the First Amendment is uncomfortable, we may deny newspapers the right to possess printing presses, paper or ink; we may deny protesters the right to speak in public places (only private residences will be secure in this right), and Religious Organizations the zoning variances necessary to build churches.

For these accouterments are no less necessary to the First Amendment than ammunition is to the Second Amendment.


And you, Joseph Edwards, are no better than Joseph Stalin in your zeal to deny your fellow countrymen their Civil Rights.

I'll bet you never thought of yourself as a Tyrant before, did you?

"I'm Back!"

They wanted Harrison Ford to star in another Star Wars! film.
He said: 'Uhhhhh no. I don't think so."


So they said it was either that, or a fourth Indiana Jones movie.

On October 31, 2007, Steven Spielberg at IndianaJones.Com announced the completion of principle photography on "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."


Starting May 22, 2008.
In movie theaters everywhere.

Just thought you would want to know.

CAST:
Ray Winstone, who plays one of Indie's "sidekicks", starred in Beowulf (2007).
Shia LaBeouf, who plays another "sidekick", starred in Transformers.
Karen Allen reprises her role as 'Marion Ravenwood' from the first Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Arc.
John Hurt is the real veteran (and one of my personal favorite actors). Among his many credits are Mr. Ollivander in the first "Harry Potter" movie, and Dr. Bruttenholm in Hellboy. He is perhaps best known for being the first victim in Alien.
Cate Blanchet played Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Ian McDiarmid played 'Supreme Chancellor Palpatine' in four Star Wars movies (I, II, III and VI).

DC v Heller - Transcript

The Supreme Court heard DC v Heller yesterday, and last week and Tuesday I gave you some places to look at the commentary. (Also see Michael Bane's DownRange TV summary here.)

The transcript is now publicly available, on the NRA website and a lot of other places. For your convenience I've also made the PDF version available to you here.

(Adobe Reader needed to read it, you can download the latest version here.)

The transcript is in legal format, and although it is 110 pages long the file is only 409KB so it should download fairly quickly.

No, I haven't read the whole thing. I've read the first dozen pages where Walter Dellinger (the attorney for DC) presented his arguments for the District of Columbia. My first impression is that the Justices interrupted his presentation 'frequently' (read: 'a lot'), usually keeping Dellinger off-balance with the need to respond to their questions and often side-tracking him until he lost the thread of his theme.


Even Justice Kennedy seemed almost confrontational.


According to Jim Shepherd of The Shooting Wire (who attended, and who wrote a summary today), Justice Clarence Thomas had not a word to say. This is his usual practice.
"As is his custom, Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak during the arguments, but has gone on record in favor of the individual right interpretation."

Shepherd also described an incident which occurred as he was interviewing Dick Heller, "the defendant of the case"*:

Speaking with him [Dick Heller] on the Supreme Court steps after the arguments - and his long question-and-answer period with the media, I asked him how he felt about “his” lawsuit.

"It's a simple case to me," Heller said, "It is wrong for the government to tell me that it is OK for me to have a gun during my work hours, but illegal for me to have a gun when the only thing I want to protect is me."

At that point, a reporter interjected: "the Mayor (DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty) says the handgun ban and his initiatives have significantly lowered violent crime in the District. How do you answer that, Mr. Heller?"

The initial answer certainly wasn't expected - Dick Heller laughed. Ruefully.

Pointing at the Mayor who was making his way across the plaza, surrounded by at least six DC police officers, Heller said, "the Mayor doesn't know what he's talking about."

"He doesn't walk on the street like an average citizen. Look at him; he travels with an army of police officers as bodyguards - to keep him safe. But he says that I don't have the right to be a force of one to protect myself. Does he look like he thinks the streets are safe?"

There was no follow-up question.

[* NOTE: in the transcript, the "District of Columbia, Et Al" is identified as "The Petitioners"; Dick Anthony Heller would be "the Respondent". Heller's attorney of record, Alan Gura, is identified as speaking "on behalf of the Respondent". Because I intuitively understood that Heller was challenging DC, I would have thought him to be the "Petitioner", which would make the District of Columbia the "Respondent". As I have mentioned before, I am clearly no Constitutional Scholar, nor am I trained in legal matters. ]

How do we interpret this?

I don't know how you choose to prognosticate on the case, but anything I could say would only be an expression of hopeful yearnings. I yearn to be positive about the future of the Second Amendment; I hope that the Supreme Court determines that it defines an 'individual right' (as do all other items in the Bill of Rights).

What I expect is a little more middle-of-the-road-ish":

• In the best possible case, the Supremes (whose final decision isn't expected before June) cannot rule in a manner which will throw every existing Gun Control Law -- rumored to be on the order of 20,000 laws -- out the window and expect the States to fit their 'local preferences' into a new framework. Some of those laws will have to be accommodated in order to avoid total anarchy.
• I expect that restrictions will not be added to the private purchases of firearms which do not involve a 'dealer' (possessor of a FFL - Federal Firearms License).
• I expect that the purchases of firearms from 'dealers' will still have to pass a background check.
• I expect that these processes will continue to disallow sale to felons, certifiable madmen, etc.
• I expect that the decision will NOT address the current trend toward State limitations on the availability of ammunition (Encoded Ammunition) nor on State requirements that firearms be fitted with a means of marking ammunition during firing (Microstamping). The sly Gun Control crowd have cleverly anticipated a Federal ruling on outright attacks on the Second Amendment; they started their Second Front years ago, to restrict access to ammunition.

Beyond that, your guess is at least as good as mine. If you're a congenital pessimist, your guess is probably better.

I hope not.


We've had our best shot (sorry) at judicial relief from the constant barrage of arbitrary and agenda-driven attacks on the Constitution. We don't have the luxury of writing our Congress-critters to petition for redress; it's up to one clench-jaw woman and 8 old men, all robed in black dresses, to decide whether we are a free people or subjects.

The Brits blew it. I sincerely believe that our system of government is superior.

Check back here in July, where there will either be a Happy Dance Party, or a pronounced gnashing of teeth.

DC v Heller ... Early Vote Counts

The Countertop Chronicles : Freedom

There are plenty of smart people talking about whether the Supremes seem more or less inclined to decided that the Second Amendment acknowledges an Individual Right to own firearms ... including handguns.

Wayne LaPierre (who is not my favorite person) wrote today that he was "... confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. "

Well, he has to be confident, doesn't he?

But the NRA's live video forum "Cam & Company" video available today (sorry, no link ... it's live) included several people (including Jim Shepherd of 'The Shooting Wire' (not a permalink), who is one of my favorite people) who spoke eloquently for 2nd Amendment rights, and proposed that Justice Kennedy seemed to be amenable to the "individual right" interpretation.

Michael Bane has some podcasts ... software download NOT required ... discussing the issues. John Lott, Jim Shepherd, Dave Kopel, et al.

All in all, the prognosis is that the Second Amendment may be in effect everywhere in America, even in the District of Columbia.

Whether this decision may be applied in Chicago and New Jersey is yet to be determined.

Maybe tomorrow.

The Brits:police 'experts' blast themselves

Gun injuries soar as police 'experts' blast themselves and colleagues by mistake | the Mail on Sunday


Hat tip to Kim:

I've refrained from criticizing "The Brits" for ever so long. I've tried to be a Good Boy and ignored the egregious socialistic measures they've imposed on their subjects.

But this ... THIS! THIS exposition of the way the once-proud British Bobby has sunk into despair because they cannot get the hang of "Keep your Booger-Hook off the Bang-Switch" concept drives me beyond the brink of restraint.

The number of armed police officers accidentally shooting themselves – and other colleagues – has soared in the past five years.

Now, nearly half of all injuries caused by police shootings are the result of officers blasting themselves or a colleague, often during bungled training and demonstrations. [emphasis added]

Since 2003, there have been seven incidents in which armed police injured themselves or a fellow officer due to the careless handling of a gun, compared to just four in the previous 12 years.

The disturbing statistics call into question the competence and training of the 6,700 officers authorised to carry firearms in the 43 police forces in England and Wales.

I attribute these lapses in gun-handling expertise to training ... or the lack of.

British Bobbies have historically NOT been armed. In an attempt to establish a cadre of Bobbies who are authorized to carry firearms, the Brits have ignored a single, important, salient priority: your trainers in Gun-Handling need to be competent.

This small, but significant criteria seems to have been overlooked, to the detriment (in physical health terms) of the training subjects.

You and I know that hormone-addled adolescents can be safely rote-trained in gun-handling skills. We've seen it; we've done it. For that matter, pre-adolescents as young as ten years old can be taught to "shot safely".

The difference between the American (clearly superior) and the British (clearly inferior) model is, "you don't let anyone handle a gun until they have demonstrated that they can do so without close and overbearing supervision".

Why am I so blatantly chauvinistic about Firearms Training in comparing the British vs the American experience? Because The Brits have officially 'determined' that "Guns Are Bad, And Must Be Discouraged"; while Americans have 'embraced' the Gun Culture and codified both usage and training in a realistic context.

That is to say, we accept firearms usage as a normal part of our culture. The Brits have demonized firearms usage, and resist any attempts to train themselves in the safe usage thereof.

Secretly, the average Brit glorifies The Way Of The Gun, and each Brit considers himself intuitively expert in Gun Handling. In the actual fact, they haven't a clue ... and they demonstrate that mistaken incomprehension at every opportunity.

Here in America, we generally tend to admit that we don't really know how to handle weapons, but we're willing to learn.

In illustration of that comparison, from the Original Article:

How officers have been wounded

Recent accidents involving police firearms include:

• A civilian control room operator was shot in the abdomen during a firearms awareness course in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, last year. A Thames Valley Police firearms officer had been showing staff his Glock pistol, unaware it was loaded.

• A Sussex police officer accidentally shot a 48-year-old PC in the body at the range at Gatwick police station in August 2007. Body armour saved him from serious injury.

• A trainee firearms officer shot a Met instructor in the thigh as he was setting up a target in a mock-up of a night-time alley in 2003.

• A diplomatic protection officer in Central London shot himself in the leg getting into a car in September 2007.

• A firearms officer from West Mercia Police shot himself in the leg and foot in January 2006 after his gun became caught in his clothing.

• An airport security officer from the Met shot the top of his thumb off when he put it in front of his MP5 sub-machine gun during training in 2005.

Here (courtesy of the American "National Rifle Association" are the three Basic Rules of Gun Safety:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

This may seem simplistic to some of you, but at least one ... or more ... of these rules were violated in EVERY "Accidental Shooting" cited above was violated.

Did these guys even know these three basic rules? Well, perhaps intellectually. But one thing is clear: if they had ever been told these rules, they dismissed them as being not applicable to their personal selves.

Until they shot them self, or their friend or colleague.
[sigh]

The worst part of these painful scenarios is not that people were shot.
The worst part is that these experiences serve to reinforce the concept that guns are so dangerous, they will shoot you if you allow yourself to be in the same room with a gun.

What a bunch of horse-radish!

The guns didn't shoot these cops; the cops shot these cops. (Am I being too subtle here?)

[sigh]

The training protocol in England sucks; it encourages cops to shoot cops.

The anti-gun (Socialist) environment in England sucks; it is based on the assumption that the individual is not only responsible for his own actions, but he is not able to control his own base impulses.

[sigh]

With no great effort, I could point The Brits to a hundred Adolescent American Girls who could establish a "Gun-Handling" program superior to anything The Brits have so far used.

All that is required is that the instructor insist on a commitment by the students, and that the instructor insist on close supervision of every step of training. These USPSA Juniors know what is Right, and what is Wrong. That establishes them as instructors superior to whatever The Brits are using now.

But will The Brits accept instruction from "Our American Friends"?
No.
[sigh]

Your loss.

Constitution: 'A Living Document' or 'Rule By Law'?

The United States has historically served as a shining example of Rule by Law in the world.

America is the first nation state openly to be predicated on the concept that a nation should be established under the proposition that all men are created equal, all should enjoy equal opportunities and equal protection under the Law, and that it is the primary duty of the State to protect these God-give rights.

In the Declaration of Independence, that basic premise looks like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In all other nation states existant at that time, rights were defined and controlled by a certain class of peoples. The presumption was that this class alone was competent to determine whether certain actions were acceptable by all people, and to decide what rights (pick and choose according to the prejudices of the ruling class) should be 'granted' to the people who were not members of the ruling class.

The United States of America has prospered during the last part of the 18th Century ... since the Constitution of the United States was proposed and accepted as Law.

Part of this prosperity was because of the vast natural resources available in this new land. As more of the North American Continent was added to the United States of America, more opportunity for prosperity was made available for use of the individual.

A Lesson in Civics:
Part of this prosperity was because the principle of Capitalism was protected: it encouraged economic growth, and it also encouraged abuse of the freedoms which were central to the basic philosophy of a Free People in a Free Nation. At the same time, as the residents of the country learned that some controls were necessary to prevent these abuses, the laws were changed (by an established legislature) to protect the rights of its citizens while continuing to encourage economic growth, and prosperity not only for capitalistic entrepreneurs but for the common working man.

Much of this growth was painful: national expansion resulted in abuse of Native Americans; the desire for 'cheap labor' encouraged the Slave Trade; as more immigrants reached our shores we discovered that Big Business was abusing the rights of new citizens to earn a wage commensurate with their labors.

Protection for Native Americans arrived late in America, as did the rights of those who were brought to these shores as indentured servants, and as outright slaves. We fought a Civil War (in part) to free our country of outright and economic slavery; the rights of Native Americans was never adequately addressed, to our everlasting shame and sorrow. Today, Native Americans are not specifically provided with federal protection despite a plethora of Treaties which vowed concessions to this class of citizens "as long as grass grows or water runs".

But most of the wrongs we did were addressed by changing the Laws of the Nation, which continued even to the Constitutional Level until, in 1863 (during the Civil War) President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. (It was flawed, but it was significant as a step to repealing the right of one man to legally possess another.)

In the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries, we addressed the rights of Labor. Congress ("the legislature") was slow to recognize the societal wrongs implied and explicit in Capitalism vs Labor, and Labor Unions were formed ... not usually in a peaceful manner. Eventually, the Nation recognized that Capitalism was fraught with peril in an unregulated society, and federal laws were proposed and enacted to protect laborers in America.

The Constitution Today:
Today we are on the threshold of revaluing another Constitutional Right: The Second Amendment.

In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States is tasked with interpreting the United States Constitution to determine whether the Second Amendment is an Individual Right or a States Right.

Why?

The Second Amendment is one of the original Ten Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights.

Let's talk about the Amendments to the Constitution.

During the Constitutional Process, Congress addressed societal issues which, in the opinion of the original Framers of the Constitution, had not been made clear. The goal was to enumerate specific Rights which were "Granted by God", not 'granted by the state'. (This was an expansion on the original acknowledgments in the Declaration of Independence: " ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... ".)

The Bill of Rights refers to those rights of "... all men..." not as new 'rights', but as an enumeration of rights already in place; granted by God, not by The State. Specifically, The State (The Nation, not individual states) did not grant these rights, but the Federal Government only acknowledged them on behalf of 'All States'.

Starting with Miller vs US in 1939, various agents of the Federal Government usurped the U.S. Constitution by legalistic subterfuge to establish the groundwork necessary to suppose that the right of the individual to possess a firearm was not constitutional.

This Federal decision is frequently referenced in support of the proposition that firearms possession is not an individual right. However, reading the original opinion one finds the passage:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Note that the citations begins with the following phrase: "In the absence of any evidence...".

This is the most telling portion of the entire Opinion, and if we ignore the background we are logically impelled to presume that "... that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia..." and "... we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

In point of fact, the original indictment involves two people: one had died before the issue reached the court, and the other had deliberately absented himself from the trial. Consequently, only federal representatives (who may reasonably be assumed to have a 'hidden agenda' were available to present evidence. Any testimony which might have been offered in defense of Miller was not presented during the hearing, because of the absence of the defendant. Therefor, only one side of the argument was presented, and the court found itself unable to consider demurring arguments because ... they were not available, no matter how telling or significant they may have been.

A Point of Reference:
In a footnote, the court notes but dismisses that the 1934 National is 'not a revenue act', but 'an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States', which might have been a legitimate defense:

United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.A.-'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.' [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

This demurrer has been constantly ignored in subsequent court actions and court decisions, because the (undefenced) challenge to the Act which might have been defensible ... if it had been defended in fact rather than being ignored 'de jure'.

POINT:
All Second Amendment related court rulings have been unavoidably tainted by the undefended 1939 Miller decision. While the federal courts are hamstrung by this ruling, the Supreme Court today has the unique opportunity to ignore this egregious (and legally unavoidable) decision.

More importantly, the question is: "should this issue be decided by the courts?"

The United States is in the arguably enviable position of ignoring the question.

Instead, this Constitutional Amendment could more appropriately be addressed by the Legislature.

The United States Constitution, according to some scholars, is not subject to interpretation other than in the context which existed at the time it was originally enacted.

Witness the Eighteenth Amendment (establishing Prohibition of the 'manufacture, sale or importation of spirituous liquors') and the subsequent Twenty-First Amendment (repealing Prohibition), both of which addressed the issue of Liquor Control. These two amendments addressed a 'societal problem' in which the cure was empirically found to be worse than the problem.

How different is 'Liquor Control' from 'Gun control'?

Well, that is a subjective definition, but it does serve to demonstrate a few facts of the American Constitutional Process.

First, the Constitution is not a 'Living Document', and if you don't like the way the Constitution does NOT restrict Civil Rights, the historically acceptable solution is not by Judicial Fiat; the 'right' way to change it is by legislation.

Second, if 'Judicial Fiat' is accepted as a legitimate manner to change the meaning of the Constitution, there exist no legitimate for the 'Will of the People' to change this interpretation. The Judiciary has already been given unconstitutional powers due to the opinion of a few judges, and the Will of the People is undermined ... as is the power of the Legislature to enact a change in Federal Law (the Constitution) by non-Judicial means.

Third, (and as a sub-set of the 2nd point) by defining the Constitution as a "Living Document", the Balance of Power (specifically and by implication) in the Federal Government loses its ability to 'Check and Balance' one branch of Government against another. This is explicitly and obviously contrary to the intention of the Founding Fathers.

Summary:
The attempt to use the Supreme Court to change the Constitution by 'interpretation' is intrinsically flawed.

If the Constitution is perceived to no longer meet the needs of Modern Society, an attempt to change the "Interpretation" of the Constitution is in and of itself unconstitutional.

The only legitimate and legal way to change the 'interpretation' of the Constitution at this point is Legislative, not Judicial.

That is, the Supreme Court of the United States does not have the Constitutional Power to legislate on this question; the Supreme Court should decline to rule in opposition to the Second Amendment, or at a minimum should find that this is an Individual Right as opposed to being a "Collective Right".

If the Legislature opposes this definition, it is empowered to propose, lobby for, and legislate an Amendment to the Constitution ... which must be ratified by the states.

The United States' Government has no powers which are not granted by the Constitution. Any attempt to end-run these powers should be viewed as an attempt to usurp the rights of the Citizen, and treated accordingly.

UPDATE: March 17, 2008

Kevin Baker (not Bacon) was kind enough to point out a typo ... I had dated the Civil War as '1963', when I should have typed '1863'. I corrected that.

Also, I changed the penultimate paragraph of the article to include constitutional amendments, and a link to the process for ratifying proposed amendments. (The Legislature cannot unilaterally enact a Constitutional Amendment; it must be ratified in one of two ways, both of which require agreement by a majority of the States.)

THINGS I LEFT OUT and shouldn't have:
The Miller Decision was erroneous because the shotgun in question actually met the test of 'suitable for a militia', because it was similar to Trench Guns used in WWI. Only government lawyers showed up for the trial, no defendant or legal representation for the defendant appeared, so only biased Governmental arguments were made. They weren't about to undermine their own case by mentioning that, so the judge couldn't reference it in his decision. (I discussed this also in the COMMENTS section.)

Also, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address we see the President who held office during the Civil War deliberately reinforcing the importance of the unique genesis of this country:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Lincoln's affirmation of the Declaration of Independence made a powerful connection with the war to insure that "all men" meant exactly that. Later Constitutional Amendments provided a further expansion to include "all women" (by enacting the XIX amendment in 1920). This served as an excellent illustration of the way that constitutional amendments ... not judicial activism ... has always before been understood to be the acceptable means to 'modernize' the Constitution to include a more liberal interpretation of rights, not to restrict rights.

Finally, a comparison of the progress of the XIX amendment with the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA) is an example of a constitutional amendment which was widely lobbied for, but failed to gather sufficient votes from the states to be ratified. The ERA sounded reasonable on its face, and Congress was ready to ratify it. However, a grass-roots campaign forced state legislators (and the general public) to look beyond the emotional furor and understand the likely consequences of its ratification. Today we see some of the same issues which we dodged back in 1977 are again being proposed at the state level (most tellingly in California) -- to the general public distaste across the country.

All of these background issues should have been included in the original essay, and they were intended to. However, I wrote the article in a single draft without even having drawn up an outline. I was secure in my overconfidence that I couldn't possibly forget these points ... and produced a weaker argument than I intended.

I apologize to my readers for presenting a flawed document. I hope these abridgments will make the thesis more understandable, although the reading will reveal its disjointed organization.

As an update, I happened to find a blog-article at abc.com which benefited by an excellent discussion in its own comments section. This remarkably civil exchange of private opinions and interpretation should serve as an example of the public opinions about the DC v HELLER when the question "whether the second amendment is an individual or a collective right" is considered objectively by private persons.