The Brits! The Dustbin Wars

A British family was fined a week's wages, according to the London Daily Mail, because their garbage can was so full of trash that they couldn't close the lid ... leaving a four-inch gap (note: how much is that in centimeters?)

With his rubbish collected only once a fortnight, Gareth Corkhill's wheelie bin was so full the lid wouldn't shut.

And for that, the father of four finds himself with a criminal record.

Magistrates convicted the 26-year-old bus driver after hearing evidence that the lid was four inches ajar, which is against rules to stop bins overflowing.

He was ordered to pay £210 - a week's wages - after he declined to pay an on-the-spot fine imposed by the local council's bin police, who visited him wearing stab-proof vests and carrying photographic evidence of his crime.

To add insult to injury he was told to pay a £15 victim surcharge to help victims of violence - despite there being no victim - and threatened with prison if he failed to pay.

Rapists, murderers and other violent criminals who have earned a jail sentence rather than a fine are immune from the penalty.

Yesterday the council, Copeland in Cumbria, said that Mr Corkhill's family had caused problems for "the battle to reduce waste".

His penalty compares with the typical on-the-spot fine of £80 given to shoplifters - even repeat offenders.

For failing to pay his fine Mr Corkhill, from Whitehaven, will now have a criminal record which he will have to disclose if he applies for a job, credit or a mortgage over the next five years.

Even after that he will have to reveal his crime if he applies for a job in the NHS, working with children, in a bank, or as a security guard.

"I can't believe I now have a criminal record for simply putting rubbish in my bin," he said. "My only crime was to leave the lid slightly open. Now I might go for a job interview and be better than someone else but the employer will see that officially, I am a criminal.

"They won't know the details of what I did. They won't know that I only put a little too much rubbish in the bin."

Over the past couple of years, I've posted many articles condemning the British for their absurd enforcement of the Form of the law, while paying little attention to the Substance.

When I previously wrote about (search the blog for "Brits"):

• Yobs in general;
• the (unresolved) murder of teen-agers for their cell-phones;
• the multiple attacks on a father ultimately resulting on his death within steps of his doorstep, which was not investigated for months;
• the father who went next door to retrieve a soccer ball inadvertently kicked over a neighbor's fence, with the result that the father was beaten to death by his neighbors by (among other weapons) a golf club;
• the report that overweight and/or smoking patients are, as a matter of policy, denied medical care by the National Health Service because their budget did not allow providing services to patients who are "not likely to discontinue destructive personal practices, therefore they are not a viable candidate for medical intervention" (probably a paraphrase);
• the incidents where a home-owner physically resisted a home-invasion burglary (of an occupied dwelling) resulting in injury to the burglar and, ultimately, governmental prosecution of the home-owner ...
  

I've often used the draconian measures applied to Dustbin Controlas a standard by which all other governmental actions should be compared.

But I never actually presented an example of Dustbin Control.

Until now.

As we have seen on many, many occasions, Yobs who attack innocent citizens are served with an "Anti-Social Behavior Order" (ASBO) rather than to face fine, probation or imprisonment ... often discregarding the frequent recurrence of the same physical attacks on honest citizens.

On the other hand, these same honest citizens are penalized egregiously under British law for such heinous offenses as over-filling their dustbins.

It is as if the police recognize that there is no benefit to be gained by penalizing criminals, but penalties imposed on honest citizens yield surprisingly positive results.

That is to say, throw a Yob in the slammer for knifing an honest citizen, and he'll just quietly serve his time and, upon release, go back to the streets and knife the next honest citizen who doesn't yield to his predations. God knows the Yob has no earnings to pay a fine, and if he did it would be something he had stolen, so what is a fine to the Yob except , except encouragement to go out and mug someone to come up with the fine?

On the other hand, fine an honest citizen a week's wages, and he is likely to be able to pay the fine ... and feel the pain of teh deprivation of his paycheck. That'll show him! ("Cow the Sheep!")

Faugh!

A pox upon the Brits, who are unable or unwilling to control the uncontrollable, but see no paradox in their willing ease of inundating bullying the law-abiding with arbitrary and draconian penalties.

If the British employed competent people for their police, they would no longer know how to administer justice.

As it is, they barely know how to oppress their subjects.

Browsers

I like Firefox.

I actually prefer Netscape ... version 7.2 (version 8.0 sucks.) Unfortunately, since AOL bought Netscape they have made the marketting decision to NOT continue development. Or support. Well, I can't blame AOL; as I said Version 8.0 is an inferior browser software whcn compared to version 7.2 .... both of which are unsupported.[

I don't like Internet Explorer Version 7 (IE7), because it is non-intuitive and awkward, and also because there are so many security vulnerabilities. [Many of these security vulnerabilities are are actually related to the companion software associated with the Email.]

Like I said, I like Firefox much better.

There's one problem with Firefox.

When I use it as my primary browser software and attempt to view videos, especially but not exclusively related to YouTube, the videos are interrupted after the first 15 seconds, and this interruption repeats in periods from 4 to 15 seconds. To encourage the video playing, it is necessary to put the mouse cursor over the video window and waggle the mouse back and forth. This seems to enervate the software. Even more unfortunatily, the last few seconds of videos often are unaccessible and the video locks up.

Tonite I experimented with IE7, accessing the same weblogs and then attempting to view videos.

No lock-up incidents were encountered.

Well, it stands to reason. IE is the standard internet browser, so all associated software (such as YouTube videos) are designed to be IE compatible.

I'll probably be using IE7 as my default browser more often than Firefox. The shift will be inconvenient to me, not least because I can't transfer my bookmarks from Firefox to IE7.

But the reliable, consistent data transfer provided by IE7 is important to me (viewing videos is the most stringent test of this feature), so I am left with the decision to either go to the Microsoft version, or use both IE7 and Firefox. Which is inconvenient, at least.

You know, I don't like the Designated Hitter rule, either, and I've learned to live with that.

Has anyone else experienced problems with loading and running videos with non-Microsoft browsers?

National Health Care Systems

Last Friday I posted a response to a comment (on another website) which suggested, among other things, that "... the American healthcare system is NOT envied around the world."

In that response I made some fairly definitive statements, among them:

• In some National Health Care (NHC) states, medical emergencies are not prioritized;
• Waiting time for such expensive technical diagnostic facilities may be longer than the time needed for early-diagnosis to be effective;
• The patient may die before diagnostic can be made available;
• Patients are not permitted to 'jump' ahead of less-critical patients, even if they are willing and able to pay for diagnostic services out of their own pocket.
• Some patients are so desperate that they travel to other countries (such as the U.S.A.) for diagnostic treatments and operations because they cannot legally and/or administratively receive emergency medical services in a manner which is sufficiently timely to avoid succumbing to their pre-diagnosed disease.

I realize that these claims may not be easily accepted, because they fall so far outside the usual boundaries of a rational health-care system.

But I assure you, they are not only factual, but well documented.

Consider the case of one Ontario, Canada citizen named Lindsay McCreith.

In 2006, Mr. McCreith was tentatively identified by his family physician as having a cancerous tumor in his brain. Because of the NHC regulations in Ontario, he could not be scheduled for a necessary MRI to confirm the tumor within a survivable timespan. He could not schedule either the MRI or the (probably) needed operation to remove the tumor within the 'safe' period after which the tumor would become inoperable, nor could he qualify for governmental permission to go outside the country for medical intervention under the NHC payment plan within that same timespan.

Eventually, due to a recent improvement in Mr. McCreith's economic situation, he was able to pay the $28,000 needed to travel to the USA, get the MRI confirmation of brain cancer, and have the tumor "the size of a golf ball" removed.

That was in late 2006 and early 2007. He is now suing the Province of Ontario for his out-of-pocket expenses, which would not have been necessary if his Socialist State NHC system would have been able or willing to provide him the medical support which he had been lead to believe was available under the Ontario NHC System.

Here is the story:


(go here for the link to the video.)


Everything I said earlier about the sad state of National Health Care systems in Socialist States (even the most benign and benevolent, such as Ontario in Canada) is absolutely true and verifiable.

Yet Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, challengers for the Democratic Party Nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America, have professed their respective intentions to establish exactly this kind of National Health Care Systems in America.

In point of fact, Clinton attempted to do so in 1992, immediately after her husband Bill Clinton was elected President. The American people rejected this bizarre, unworkable socialist scheme 16 years ago; will we be as wise in November of 2008?

"Empty Holster" demonstrations at American Colleges

John R. Lotte writes to note the "Empty Holster" passive demonstrations taking place this week (April 21 - 26, 2008) on College campuses around the nations.

Lott notes that "Gun Free Zones are Not Safe", a year and a week after the Virginia Tech massacre proved the point with the death of 32 people, and the wounding of many more ... mostly students.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, that PNW Bastion of Leftest Political Correctness, notes that "UW Students Want To Bring Guns To School". In an April 18, 2008 article, the PI writes:

Next week, students at the University of Washington will be making a fashion statement -- Gunsmoke style.

Students affiliated with the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and the University of Washington College Republicans will wear empty holsters around campus for a week starting Monday, a symbol that they think concealed weapons should be allowed at the university.

"We have walked around the U-District with targets on our backs for far too long," College Republican Justin Bryant said in a statement Friday. "We need to allow students to defend themselves and make criminals think twice before they brutalize a UW student again."

The UW demonstration will parallel similar events at campuses across the country next week, an effort organized in response to a series of violent events at U.S. universities in the last several years.

"As students at the University of Washington our safety is constantly in question," Bryant said. "It is time something is done so students can spend time worrying about our education, not our safety."

John Lott is impressive, but as a venue to illustrate the ideological chasm between the people who think Gun Free Zones are a predator magnet and those who think that the chances of having a predator show up on campus is a much less credible danger than the proliferation of armed citizens on campus ... you can't find a better showplace for disagreement than the Comments section of the PI article.

Incidentally, the law in Washington includes an exception to Concealed Carry Licensees to the general state law which forbids the possession of firearms on college campuses. However, the University of Washington policy forbids firearms possession by anyone except Law Enforcement Officers on duty, etc. Essentially, if you're in uniform and on duty, and your job requires you to carry a weapon, the University won't stop you. Anyone else found in possession of a weapon will be asked to leave.

And, in the actual event, the chances are very good that a student with a firearm will be kicked out, scholarships rescinded, no credit for incomplete classes, not allowed to re-enroll, and further subject to any other administrative penalty which the university is empowered to impose. Good luck trying to enroll in any other college in Washington.

This is curiously similar to the situation at my 'home' college in Oregon ... where the "Empty Holster" passive protest is also being observed this week (link is to the OSU Student Newspaper: The Barometer).

Empty gun holsters will be seen on campus throughout this week as a sign of a silent protest against state laws and OSU policies that prohibit concealed handguns on campus.
It is unlawful to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Oregon without an appropriate permit, as stated in ORS 166.250. Students also cannot carry concealed weapons on campus, even if they are in possession of an appropriate permit. [Ed: emphasis added]

Brian Tsai, president of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, hopes that this week's silent protest will get the word out to the OSU community about their rights to carry a concealed weapon.
Tsai said that a college campus is no different from any other public place, where carrying a concealed weapon is permitted.
"All people who purchase a gun have to pass federal and state background checks in addition to safety training and mental health checks," Tsai said. "So the chance of a gun owner being irresponsible with their weapon is very low."
The silent protest will take place on more than 600 campuses nationwide with 6,000 students participating in the event.
OSU is among numerous college campuses throughout the state which have adopted an administrative rule, OAR 576-065-0010, prohibiting students from carrying concealed weapons.

There are no 'campus police' at OSU; the campus is patrolled by members of the Oregon State Police.

Here's "The Other Side" of the issue (also from the OSU Barometer article cited above):

"The bottom line is that this protest is not going to change anything," said Jack Rogers, director of public safety at OSU. "The Oregon administrative rule overrides any provision for concealed weapons, and it is very unlikely that the Oregon University System will yield to any change on this subject." [Ed: this is not consistent with the "Open Minds, Open Doors" motto of this university. See below.]
Tsai said that students who carry concealed weapons at OSU are not breaking any laws.
"All that the security personnel can do is ask the person to leave the campus," Tsai said.
Students who carry concealed weapons are looking to defend themselves in a certain situation, added Tsai. They are not vigilantes.
"The only idea here is to try to defend oneself, because response time for police in situations like Virginia Tech can be anywhere from three to five minutes," Tsai said.
Rogers, however, doesn't believe that an average gun owner would know how to use deadly force properly in an extreme situation.
"We in law enforcement have gone through an extreme amount of firearms training," Rogers said. "We're the ones who are the professionals." [Ed: link added]
He also said that students who carry concealed weapons may not be knowledgeable enough to determine when to use deadly force and when to restrain. Rogers believes that firearms in a college environment have to be controlled.
"The bottom line is that we have well-trained and well-prepared staff here who know what the training is all about," Rogers said.
"[The use of deadly force] doesn't come lightly; it takes a tremendous amount of training to use deadly force."

(Emphasis added)

Some who read the opinions of Jack Rogers may consider that the students who were killed at Virginia Tech probably learned the hard way when to use deadly force.

When a gunman is killing your classmates, that is probably a very good time to use deadly force.

Move Over!

Oregon is one of the majority states which require drivers to move over to the inner lanes, or at least slow down, when passing a 'roadside emergency'. This includes a work crew, or a disabled automobile, or a policeman who has pulled another driver to the side of the road.

The reason for this law is to avoid endangering people who are standing by the side of the road.

The law is not just 'A Good Idea', it's vital for the safety of people who necessarily find themselves standing beside the highway.

I lost a family member several years ago to this kind of accident. He was a member of a "Highway Crew" performing repairs on the roadway at night, in the rain, on a busy country road. A passing car hit him, dragged him, and tore his right leg off at the hip joint. He bled to death in seconds.

A more recent ... and better documented case ... is that of Oregon Police Lt. Clint Chrz (pronounced "Churz") who was on motorcycle patrol when he pulled over a passing automobile.

As he was talking to the drive, a following car ran into this motorcycle, which was parked near the driver-side rear bumper of the pulled-over car. The impact pushed the motorcycle into Lt. Chrz, hurling him down the highway to end up semi-conscious in the traffic lane. It was only good fortune and the quick-thinking of the next car to come along which allowed this 3rd driver to stop his car cross-wise in the traffic lane, protecting the policeman from being crushed by following traffic.

Go here to see the full description of the accident, including a video of the incident as recorded by Chrz's motorcycle-mounted camera.

If you find yourself on the highway approaching a set of warning lights on the roadside ... MOVE OVER!

Hot Links: "Time Covers"

I don't update the sidebar-element "Hot Links" nearly often enough (who's neurotic?), but when I do I think I should recognize that they often change on the sidebar, but they are always interesting and as such should be preserved for your future reference.

From now on I'll try to remember to link to them in an article for future searches.

The Hot Link for this period (a week or two) is "Time Covers".

This link provides you access to the covers of Time Magazine for a period, a year, a month ... or for a specific subject (I think).

I've referenced this website from time to time, because it provides a snapshot of what is fresh and interesting in the world during a specific week ... at least, in the mind of the editors of Time Magazine.


Here's an example:
I was born on the day that the U.S. Marines raised the American Flag atop Mount Surabachi on Iwo Jima. That was a seminal event in the Pacific Theater of World War II, which (after the fall of the Third Reich) was the final theater of operations of the War.

And what was on the cover of TIME magazine the following week?

A picture of US Admiral Chester Nimitz.





Well, Nimitz is one of my personal heroes, but the marines on Iwo Jima were in the mud and the blood, and they rated higher in my mind. But TIME magazine had a policy of presenting paintings of powerful and influential men in the world and in the World War, which I think caused them to lose sight of the influential events of the time.


To my mind, the Marines raising the flag over Mount Suribachi was the iconic image of the American Common Man prevailing over the fascist aggression which caused the Second World War. (Click on the image for a full-size image.)




What does TIME MAGAZINE offer us today?


Times Magazine here equates "Green Politics" with the sacrifices made by these brave men of 50+ years ago, as if tree-hugging is as as bold as fighting suicidal Japanese infantry who are embedded in fixed defensive positions with plenty of ammunition and a strong national identity.

This image seems to me to undermine the accomplishment of the Marines on Iwo Jima in 1945.

Perhaps I'm just too close to the event, by virtue of my birth date, to appreciate the implication that "Green is Good" is equivalent to the politically correct message of 2008.

Or ... I don't know ... maybe I'm actually correct in thinking that the editors of Time are now, and have always been, a bunch of elitist snob idiots who are congenitally incapable of appreciating the pivotal moments of their Time; then, or now.

The covers are interesting, 'anyway', if only because they demonstrate in a dynamic manner the way that the Main Stream Media are so far away from the gestalt of Main Stream America.
This tacitly denigrates the determination, the devotion, the courage, the fatalism and the national identity which characterized both sides in the grievous conflict which was World War Two.

Still, I am appalled.

Todd Lizotte Interview: Pre-Production

Todd Lizotte, "co-inventor" of Microstamping technology, replied to my initial interview questions (submitted via email) with a short note in my Comments. According to Mr. Lizotte, he has been "de-compressing" from a few weeks of business trips. However, he has been working on the questions and promises to reply to them this week.

I'm grateful to Mr. Lizotte for his willingness to reply to many controversial (and often technical) questions.

After I had sent my initial questions, it occurred to me that I didn't really address the issue which prompted his original note to me.

Here is the outline which I had proposed in my email to him:

If I correctly understand your position (compared with mine), you take exception to two issues which I mentioned:
1) you object to my assertion that Microstamping is confused with
"cartridge/bullet serialization";
2) Microstamping technology is mis-perceived as 'requiring a national database" to be effective, which I have mis-characterized in my article.

I did respond to the first part by comparing and contrasting my own definitions of "Microstamping Ammunition" and "Encoding Ammunition" . (Essentially, one involves modifications to the firearm to stamp code on the base of the cartridge during firing; the other involves micro-engraving code on the base of the bullet and/or on the inside of the cartridge case during manufacture of the ammunition).

However, I never did actually address the "National Database" question. Instead, I launched directly into my own set of questions and scenarios for his consideration.

I'll perhaps publish the LONG list of interview questions in another article, but I've neglected to stay On Subject in regards to the second part.

In hopes that I can revisit that question for his later consideration, I'll print here the response I should have sent him in my April 13, 2008 email:

Microstamping Ammunition Will Require a National Database
Mr. Lizotte,
if I correctly understand the code which would be stamped on fired ammunition, it will (according to the information provided on the Industrial Laser Solutions Article titled "Fighting Crime with Laser Engraving"), provide codes for the following data points:

• The Make (manufacturer, eg: "Smith and Wesson" or "SW") of the firearm;
• The Model (eg: Model 10, or "10") of the firearm;
• The manufacturer's unique serial number of the firearm (eg: "1234")

Under the hypothetical scenario wherein a microstamped cartridge case is found at the scene of a crime, and in keeping with your published claim that the purpose of microstamping ammunition with this date is "Fighting Crime", the police are left with with the minimal data "SW10/1234". This information, we presume, will lead the police to the person who fired a weapon at a crime scene.

My question is: what are the police to do with this information?

There is currently no national registry of firearms available to police to identify the current owner of "the Smith & Wesson Model 10 Pistol, serial number 1234".

NICS Data Not Available:
Granted, when a firearms is originally purchased from a dealer, federal law (under the original "Brady Bill", HR1024) requires that this information be gathered along with information uniquely identifying the purchaser. (I note that the original bill mandated a 5-day waiting period, but this provision was later obviated when the National Instant Check System was established.)

Under the updated regulations, ALL information about this purchasing transaction must be destroyed within 24 hours of confirmation that the transaction is legal.

Therefore, the National Instant Check System is specifically not permitted available to serve as a National Registry of firearms purchases.

In point of fact, no firearms registry database is available at a federal level. Some states and municipalities have attempted to establish a 'local' registry, with various levels of success. A case in point is the notorious 1989 California registry of 'assault' firearms, which later resulted in uncompensated confiscations.

(I note in passing that this 2005 article discusses both microstamping and bullet encoding in California, and appears to equate the two technologies. This is probably the cause of your original complaint that I have blurred the line between the two, and you are right; the article does discuss both technologies as if they are one and the same. I accept Mea Maxima Culpa for not intelligently discussing the two as separate processes.)

Firearms owners have recent history of abuse by authorities of any firearms registration, because it is more often a resource for confiscation than for crime solving. Other states and localities (county and municipal level) have enacted similar schemes, which may involve licenses required for purchase of firearms, but which are ipso facto registry of firearms and are not supported by Federal law.

The applicable Federal law is, in fact, the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and while one may consider this reference to be a biased personal interpretation of a controversial "Right", I note that the Supreme Court of the United States is currently reconsidering this interpretation in the "DC v HELLER" case. It should not be dismissed as a parochial concern at least until the final vote is tallied.

In point of fact, given the history of "Registration Equals Confiscation" in this country, the chances are that the SCOTUS decision may never permit the establishment of a reference database where "SW10/1234" is sufficient to determine the original owner of a "Smith and Wesson Model 10, Serial Number 1234".

If so, then there is absolutely no justification for Microstamping of Ammunition for investigative purpose; it would only be useful if the firearms in question is found, and further analysis can establish that it will reliably stamp the same ammunition on a cartridge which is physically similar to the cartridge found at the scene of the crime.

One might be excused for supposing that other technical processes which are already available to Police Forensic Laboratories (bullet striations, for example) will prove to be more useful in a court of law to prove that the bullet was fired from the subject handgun.

UPDATE: 23-APR-2008
Edited to correct errors in grammar and sentence construction; also cosmetic improvements.

USPSA 2008 Rule 8.3.7.3 - "Holster"

Browsing through the Brian Enos forum, I found an interesting "Rules" discussion which explored the "end of COF" question. Specifically, is it legal to bag your pistol rather than to return it to your holster?

The consensus that I found seems to be that the competitor is required to holster, but as a courtesy the RO may allow the pistol to be returned to a "bag" instead.

Here's the text of the rule in the 2008 rule book:

8.3.7.3 If the gun proves to be clear, the competitor must holster his handgun.

In club matches, such courtesy seems to be taken for granted. The pace is slow, the level of "Gentlemen's Agreements" is high, and range clearing time is usually improved by providing such courtesies. In fact, to insist that the handgun be holstered rather than bagged (returned to a non-holster carrying article) might lead to a heated discussion of the proprieties, slowing down the match and generating bad feelings.

However, at Level II and higher matches, it is a common understanding that competitors come to the line ready to shoot, which includes the pistol in the holster, and leaves with the pistol returned to the holster. Before the competitor comes to the line he is expected to remove his pistol from the bag and holster it at a safety table. This presumably speeds up the time spent on the stage for each competitor, and reduces the presumptuous administrative burden on the RO. (The RO would need to pass off the bag to the scorekeeper, to keep this hands free, and there is often a time lag while the RO reminds the scorekeeper that the bag must be passed to the RO, and then to the competitor, to complete the stage.)

I note that it is most often the Open Division shooters who bag guns; Limited competitors may bag between stages, but Production and Limited 10 / Singlestack competitors more often do not. I suspect that distribution of bagging/non-bagging practices is influenced by the weight of the handgun and the retention reliability of the holster.

For example, when I shoot an Open gun from my USA holster, I will always bag between stages. The pistol is heavy, the skeletal USA holster always makes me wonder whether the lock-knob is properly locked for retention, and I might knock the pistol out of the holster by the natural swing of my arms as I walk.

On the other extreme, a small polymer pistol (Production Division) in a Forbus holster doesn't weigh much, doesn't significantly stick out from the hip, and may be carried all day without much discomfort.

There are some considerations which are implied in the two approaches:

Bagging permitted:
This is usually assumed at club matches, if for no other reason than that many smaller 'local' clubs don't always have safety tables available on every bay. In order to move the handgun from the bag to the holster, it may be necessary for each competitor to walk a significant distance from the stage bay to the safety table. That time requirement may require some stage time if a competitor fails to leave enough time before his turn to shoot, to prepare for the next stage. The Range Officers are usually members of the squad.

Holster Required:
In a large match (Level II and above) then number of competitors per squad will probably be higher than at a club match. The pressure to reduce stage-clearing time per each competitor is greater; seconds per competitor do count when there are several hundred competitors who need to shoot a dozen or more stages in a one-and-a-half or two day match. The RO staff are dedicated, assigned people who are not competing during the match. (Typically Staff is allowed to shoot the match the day before the start of the match, and bagging standards may be relaxed because, in the RO match, the RO staff are often members of the squad.) Because the labor burden is so heavy for the individual staff member, any procedure which limits the number of extra duties for the staff is encouraged; officiating at a major match is usually physically exhausting, and the standards of performance are very high.

The problem with the difference in priorities between a Club Match and a Major Match is that those who almost always compete only in Club Matches may have some ingrained assumptions. Here, the important assumption is that the 'courtesy' of allowing the competitor to come to the line with a bagged handgun is a common right, even if the rules don't actually support it.

When a club shooter competes at a Major Match, he may not realize that the rules are changed. After all, we shoot with the same rules at every match. The Club Shooter has not been trained to the higher standard of enforcement.

Why are we even talking about this?
In the actual events, Club Shooters are often confused by the different etiquette which is required at Major Matches. This is not only frustrating, but may reduce their level of satisfaction of the Major Match experience.

Even experienced shooters may forget that the level of readiness is increased at a Major Match.

It may be worth the effort to ascertain before the match what the expectations are; usually, a Major Match will provide a handbook for competitors which includes these expectations. Look for phrases such as "Competitors will come to the line ready to shoot", indicating that your handgun will be in the holster, you will have your magazines loaded and placed in magazine carriers, and you will have both eye and ear protection in place, or ready to wear.

Any competitor who is not ready to shoot will be sent back and the next competitor in the squad will be called to the line while the others prepare their gear according to the requirements.

It isn't personal, it isn't a case of the Range Officers being "Range Nazis". The competitors are only being required to abide by the rules of the game, in the strictest sense, for the sake of getting through the match according to what is probably a very tight match schedule.

If you didn't know that before, you know it now.

Microstamping Ammunition: Rhode Island

Introduced By: Representatives Almeida, Ajello, Williams, Diaz, and Giannini
Date Introduced: February 26, 2008
Referred To: House Judiciary

In another of a continuing series of moves by state legislatures to impose 'gun control' by proposing unnecessary restrictions on either firearms or ammunition manufacture, the Rhode Island House has presented (as of February, 2008) a bill to require semi-automatic pistols to 'stamp' identifying characters on every round of ammunition fired.

(This information from a NRA Alert.)

This bill came before the House Committee on Judiciary this week, where it will either be passed back to the House for a vote and then advance to the Senate for consideration, or it will 'die in committee'.

This latter result is much preferred by honest gun owners; criminals, of course, don't care. They won't be using firearms which they purchased under their own name from retailers, so microstamped ammunition left at the scene of a crime will never be traced back to them.

However, the provisions of the bill present some sticky legal and logistical problems for honest gun owners. (Most of the problems are not unique to the Rhode Island bill, but instead are typical of all Microstamping Ammunition bills so far presented by state legislatures.)

House Bill 7834 includes the following considerations:

11-47-63. Microstamping capability of semiautomatic weapons required.
(a) All semiautomatic weapons as defined in section 11-47-2 manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer within the state shall be capable of microstamping ammunition.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a), a semiautomatic weapon is capable of microstamping ammunition if:
(1) a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the firearm is etched into the firing pin and the breech face of the semiautomatic weapon; and
(2) when ammunition is fired from the semiautomatic weapon, the characters are copies from the firing pin and the breech face onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.
(c) Subsection (a) shall apply only to semiautomatic weapons which are manufactured or imported into the state on or after the effective date of this subsection.
(d) Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined an amount equal to:
(1) in the case of a first such violation by the violator, one thousand dollars ($1,000) multiplied by the number of semiautomatic weapons involved in the violation;
(2) in the case of a second violation by the violator, two thousand dollars ($2,000) multiplied by the number of semiautomatic weapons involved in the violation;
(3) in the case of a third such violation by the violator, three thousand dollars ($3,000) multiplied by the number of semiautomatic weapons involved in the violation.

I'm sure that before they sponsored the bill, Rhode Island State Representatives Almeida, Ajello, Williams, Diaz, and Giannini studied the bill carefully, discussed the ramifications with their constituents, researched the available documentation to determine the feasibility of the technology, and consulted a Focus Group of gun owners to investigate the possible negative ramifications of this bill before they sponsored it.

(If you live in Rhode Island, please feel free to click on the above contact-links for these Sponsoring State Representatives and voice your support for their willingness to impose non-judicial penalties on your Second Amendment Rights.)

I'm also sure that pigs can fly politicians are universally honest and caring people who would allow themselves to 'look bad' to the (democratic party supporting ... see links to RI House web pages above) Main Stream Media rather than to propose a bill which would present an ipso facto end-run on the Constitution of the United States.

However, it may prove useful to Rhode Island residents who own guns or who are considering gun ownership to pay careful attention to the implications of this bill.

First, note that subparagraph (b)(1) requires that:
a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the firearm is etched into the firing pin and the breech face of the semiautomatic weapon

Now consider that both the firing pin and the breech face must perform the required microstamping. That is expressly required by subparagraph (b) (2):
when ammunition is fired from the semiautomatic weapon, the characters are copies from the firing pin and the breech face onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.

However if for ANY reason the microstamping phenomena is not evinced upon both the primer and the 'breach face [of] the cartridge case', the person who fired the firearm, or the person who owns the firearm (this point of law is not discussed in the bill) may be subject to fines in the amount of $1,000, $2,000, or $5,000, depending upon circumstances.

Let's look at some real-life examples of firearms usage, to gain some perspective.

IF you are at the range shooting your semi-automatic pistol in, say, a Practical Pistol match and your firing pin bends, breaks or is otherwise determined to be unserviceable, by current law you can simply replace the non-functioning firing pin and continue shooting.


However under the proposed bill, any replacement firing pin must reliably perform the microstamping function, which implies that you must have in your immediate possession a firing pin which has been endowed with the mystical ability to emboss sufficient data to legally identify the firearm.

Is it legal for you to own two (or more) such firing pins? We don't know.

What is the cost of obtaining a 'backup' firing pin which meets the legal requirements?
We don't know, but we doubt that it compares favorably with the (approximately, determined by several marketing and technological factors which have not been identified) $10 each for a 'competitive' semi-automatic pistol.

Both the firing pin and the breech face of your semi-automatic pistol are subject to wear, and to the accumulation of powder residue and, yes, even small flakes of brass which are typically worn from the cartridge during normal usage.

What happens if the integrity of the firing pin and/or the breech face are compromised, either from the accumulation of such detritus during a days usage or because you are negligent in performing a regular regimen of cleaning your pistol? Are you subject to fine because your gun is dirty? We don't know, but if your firearm is tested and it is determined that it will not meet the requirements of subparagraph (b)(2), then you are personally responsible.

Are you subject to fine? We don't know.

How will this inability to meet the minimal microstamping requirements' be audited?
We don't know.

Will there be Firing Pin Patrols regularly conducted by State Police for the sole purpose of determining whether your pistol meets the state regulatory requirements of Microstamping Ammunition
We don't know.


SUMMARY:
Any law which does not include enforcement is unenforceable. There are no provisions in this bill which would either define the enforcement requirements, or provide funding for such enforcement. There are no provisions for acknowledging that the physical erosion or obfuscation of microstamping mechanisms may make it either impossible or minimally problematic for the firearm owner to meet, so if the technology fails it is not the fault of the (sole-source) provider but it is definitively the fault of the firearms owner ... or the person who is using the firearm (and is not the owner).

Which again emphasizes that responsibility is not defined in the case where the person using the non-microstamping firearm is not the owner. Who is responsible for personally checking that the microstamping function actually works on a given firearm?
That's right, you got it in one: We don't know.

Conclusion:
The reliability of the technology is merely problematic. However, the composition of the bill is obviously flawed in that it does not address several issues relating to maintenance, servicing and replacement parts of the firearm. Also, enforcement is not addressed other than the imposition of fines ... on someone; who, we don't know.

Note:
Last week, we reported that (in response to an earlier article referencing Microstamping Ammunition), we received a comment from Todd Lizotte. Mr. Lozotte is the self-professed 'inventor' of the "Microstamping Ammunition" technology. He took exception fo a confusion which he identified between "Microstamping Ammunition" and "Encoded Ammunition". He offered to discuss the issues.

(The first refers to the ability to cause a firearm to stamp an unique code on a physical aspect of a cartridge case or primer when a cartidge is fired from a gun; the second refers to ammunition which is stamped with identifying codes during the manufacturing process and which makes no attempt to identify the firing gun, but instead identifies the purchaser of the ammunition purchased at the retail level.)

In my reply, I acknowledged that Mr. Lizotte's were justified, identified several issues which were unique to "Microstamping Ammunition", and invited him to respond via email to any or all of the specific concerns which I cited.

I have not yet received any reply from Mr. Lizotte. Well, he is a busy man and probably doesn't have time in his work-day to defend the technology which he has invented. To assume otherwise would suggest that there are political, societal or user-concerns which he would rather not address.

I remain convinced that his failure to follow up on his promise to "reply to questions" is fully justified by his busy work schedule, and not by any desire to avoid the questions which have been presented to him.

UPDATE: May 19, 2008
From an NRA Alert dated May 02, 2008:

Friday, May 02, 2008

Please Contact the Members of the Committee Today! House Bill 7834, the "microstamping" proposal sponsored by State Representatives Joseph Almeida (D-12), Edith Ajello (D-3), Anastasia Williams (D-9), Grace Diaz (D-11), and Joanne Giannini (D-7) has been referred to the House Finance Committee after being pulled from the agenda of the House Judiciary Committee. Sensing a possible lack of support in the Judiciary Committee, typically the panel with expertise on firearms-related legislation, the bill's sponsors had it referred to another committee where H7834 could get a hearing and be voted on at any time. Its companion bill, Senate Bill 2720, introduced by State Senators Harold Metts (D-6), Juan Pichardo (D-2) and Paul Jabour (D-5), is being held up for further study in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

Forty KaBOOM!

A couple of months ago at the Dundee match, a friend picked up a piece of brass and brought it over to show me.

"Somebody had a lot of trouble on this stage", he said. "Looks like his ammo blew up, and it locked up his gun for a while. I'm thinking ... double-charge of powder."

I was only mildly curious at the start, but once I looked at the cartridge case I had to agree.


In the first place, the case was dramatically bulged on one side, which suggests not only an overcharge but also that the case was fired in a barrel without a fully supported chamber.








When I looked at the base, I saw more signs of abuse. The headstamp was almost completely obliterated, which suggests that this case had been fired so many times that the headstamp was eroded to the point of being erased. That's not a problem with the base, which is the strongest and thickest part of the cartridge case, but it does suggest that excessive reloading may have caused the sidewall of the case to have been weakened.

On the other hand, is it possible that the headstamp may have been partially obliterated because the pressure of the overcharge (?) pressed the base of the cartridge against the breech so fiercely that the headstamp was malformed?

Looking at the case more closely, the case didn't split; it wasn't an 'explosive' KaBoom, only the kind of situation where the case can be jammed in the chamber and cause the shooter a delay in completing a stage while he strives to extract a bulged cartridge.

As evidence of the problem, take another look at the cartridge base. The missing primer is an almost certain indicator that the cartridge was overcharged. The only other condition which would cause the primer to be ejected from the cartridge case is if the case had been fired so many times, the primer pocket had eroded or expanded ... allowing the primer to be ejected when the cartridge was fired under 'normal' pressures.

In this situation, if the primer was only loosely held in the primer pocket, the pressure would probably not have been contained to the point that the case wall was bulged. (This isn't an infallible test, it depends on the timing of the pistol; if the wrong size link is used in a 1911, the release of the slide to recoil may have been delayed to the point at which the pressure built up too much on almost every shot. But this would suggest a number of KaBooms.)


The final information to be gathered by examination of the case is that the base shows not one, but two places where the rim of the cartridge has been obviously deformed by slippage of the extractor, which probably left the cartridge case jammed in the chamber.

We would have expected one such sign of extractor failure, but two of them suggest that this is the second time this case has failed.

I don't believe that; I don't think that a blown case was reloaded, and I don't believe that extractor slippage happened twice on exactly opposite sides of the base on the same cartridge.

But I would appreciate the contribution from a more knowledgeable reader to explain the diametrically opposite marks on the cartridge base.

Or is there a Forty Slow and Wimpy pistol on the market with dual extractors?

---

We've made a lot of assumptions based on a minimal amount of real data. Anyone who can claim more technical expertise is invited to contribute here.

Enquiring people want to know. Please respond in Comments.

Ultrasonic Gun Cleaner

I've seen ultrasonic gun cleaner set-ups before ... well, once. The guy who had it showed me his garage setup (this was ... oh, a dozen years ago), which was a steel tank full of solvent, with a lid and some kind of 'mechanism' in it, along with a metal mesh basket. It was based on the ultrasonic cleaners that jewelers use for cleaning rings, necklaces, broaches, etc. Except, of course, it was bigger and more robust.

It was expensive, so while I was impressed it always seemed far beyond my means.

While I was surfing around the net today, though, I found a slicker looking setup that doesn't require a stand, and can be run on your kitchen counter top.

It's not my policy to tout commercial ventures which I have not tried, but it's worth a few minutes to consider this Weapons Cleaning system.


The LawmanLab.Com HCS-200 Ultrasonic Gun Cleaner 'tank' is a little under 12" long, 6" wide and 4" high. (inner dimension of the 'tank', which I presume is the stainless tub at the left of the picture.)

If the documentation is any accurate measure, it will clean and lubricate one 6" revolver or two semi-auto pistols in 20 minutes.

The price is just on the near side of affordable for the dedicated competition shooter at $399.

I'm wondering how well it handles the powder-cake in the compensator of a Race Gun.


If you're not daunted by the $400 price tag, you might want to consider the "Professional" version: The F275HT will take a single handgun (or maybe 2 revolvers ... there may be a typo in the boilerplate) in its "Heated Tank", which features a 9" x 5" mesh basket. There is no information about how long it takes to clean the pistol(s), nor is there any discussion about whether the 'heated' cleaner compares to the home version.

However, the arrangement looks more like something you would see in a gunshop, and sells for a head-swiveling $850. My guess is that this is designed for daily (rather than weekly) use, and is probably more robust and designed to have it 'up' all day, every day, as a gunsmith shop cleans pistols prior to repairs or modifications.

There are larger versions, for multiple handguns or for long guns, but the 2-handgun version of the "professional" grade cleaner is offered for $1,340. (The prices go up, rapidly, with higher capacity or longer tank sizes, and it doesn't take long before you're buying a stand to mount the tank.)

Both prices are a little steep for a working man (pencil-necked Geek), so I'm not likely to plunk down a couple of days' pay to provide you with a Product Evaluation.

But I have to admit, I like the idea and I sure do wish I could report that "Hey, this stuff really works!" Cleaning pistols every week, gets old really fast, and it's very tempting when some guy walks up to you on the Internet Street and says "Son, I can clean that gun for you and you won't even have to get your hands dirty".

Well, perhaps not that, but I'm every bit as curious as you are.

If any of you have seen one of these, know anybody who has, or (most especially) if you OWN one ... would you please provide the information via the Comments page?

I'm still going back and looking at that puppy. Just think ... what if it really works?

It just might be worth the price of admission.

UPDATE: 21-APR-2008
Commenter "Overload in Colorado" mentions that Harbor Freight offers a selection of ultrasonic cleaners for a significantly lower price. I did a search and found a few that might work for pistol cleaning. The highest priced item is a 1.5 quart counter-top cleaner for $160; the tank is 4"x9"x5-1/4", which may or may not accommodate Race Guns' compensated barrels. You could put them in at a tilted angle, that might work.

Still, I'm curious about the LawmanLab.com claim that you could "... clean and lubricate [your] pistol in 20 minutes." I guess they must have a solvent which also serves as a lube, if that makes any sense. Here is a list of the cleaning solvents they sell. The also offer a FAQ page, and links to other suppliers and brands. (Note that I haven't found any of the chemicals which obviously provide a cleaning and lubrication capability.)

Flight Deck Officer To Be Terminated for Negligent Discharge?

From the Shooting Wire, this story about the Flight Deck Oficer who poked a hole in the bulkheat of his US Airways craft last month.

We still don't know the whole story (we may never know), and I'm not one who is inclined to whitewash "Negligent Discharge" incidents under the common exculpatory term "Accidental Discharge".

But it seems to me that the grounds have been fairly laid that the TSA holster/secure requirements are problematic, which suggests that the blame may be shared between " ... Capt. James Lengenhahn, the pilot whose firearm accidentally discharged in the cockpit during a flight last month ..." and the TSA.

I suspect we have not yet heard the last about this incident.

Ted Nugent: Independence is a beautiful thing; dependency isn't

Ted Nugent: Independence is a beautiful thing; dependency isn't

Last year, I posted (on an alternate blog) an article by Ted Nugent. The concept was that "Universal Health Care" was a Socialist invention which was doomed to failure (because it required that productive members of society would be required to support non-productive members, with the predictable result that the well would run dry.)

Today I received a comment by a person who not only is unable to definitively identify himself, but expressed only contempt for the concept:

"Malicious Matt":
From: Malicious Matt
Malicious Matt has left a new comment on your post "Ted Nugent: Nothing is free":

Right on! Compassion and decency is for liberal sissies! The world needs bigger, greedier corporations, more right-wing gun toting morons screaming "freedom" while boycotting records by artists who openly criticize Bush, less black people, and more wars to fuel the military industrial complex! HAHA!!

Oh, and by the way, the American healthcare system is NOT envied around the world. I know, because I've been there, and the majority are afraid the same will happen in their countries. So somebody's been fuckin lying to ya on that point, m'kay? Great.

I realize that the email address is not workable, but I replied to it anyway. (And I'll soon post the reply to the the original article.)

But because it is a slow blogging day, and because the comment demonstrates a lamentable (if pathetic) all-too-common attitude, I include both the original response and my reply here.

(Note that my reply is, predictably, "Geek-Length".)

Jerry the Geek:
Hi Matt;
I'm the guy who blogged (last year!) the Ted Nugent article about "Nothing Is Free". You raised some interesting .. if self-serving ... comments.

Let's look at them, shall we?

"Compassion and decency is for liberal sissies!"

I'm just guessing here, but apparently you think that a National Health Care Law (such as exists in England and Canada) is A Good Idea.

You do realize, don't you, that this is rampant socialism?

You do realize that a National Health Care Law, as envisioned by both Obama and Clinton, includes garnisheeing your wages if you do not sign up for a (mandatory) weekly donation to a National Health Plan?

Did you realize that English and Canadian citizens often find themselves at the end of a long, long line of prior applicants for such immediately necessary procedures as MRI or CAT-SCAN?

Let's say that your physician (if you can get an appointment) diagnoses you as having Cancer, and prescribes both of these procedures to determine whether and what treatment would be most likely to arrest the progression of your disease. Did ou know that you will be scheduled after all the soccer injuries have been processed ... because they put their names in earlier than you? Did you know that Cancer can be arrested with early treatment, but is less likely to be survivable if diagnostic procedures are not made available in a timely fashion?

Let us further suppose that (unlikely as it seems today), you are gainfully employed and can afford to spend, say, $1,000 out-of-pocket to confirm the diagnosis.

Did you know that you are not legally permitted, under the National Health Care Law, to seek technical diagnostic help because you need it immediately to save your life, and you can afford it? But you can't get it?

That's why Canadians are commonly driving from, say, Ontario to Milwaukee to get an MRI. America has the resources, and will prioritize your access because if you don't get it quickly, you will die.

On the other hand, let's say that you are an American citizen and receive the same tentative diagnosis. Did you know that you will be placed at the head of the line for necessary emergency medical care, based only on the immediacy of your need even though you can't personally afford it?

That's right, the American system of medicine places need above resources ... and in fact, that is true even if you are not a citizen and are, in fact, in America illegally.

And that, incidentally, is why hospitals in border states such as Arizona and Texas are closing; foreign nationals may have illegally crossed the border to avail themselves of emergency medical treatment, even though they may not have contributed to the general fund by virtue of having performed useful labor and contributed to the tax base.

You say:
"Oh, and by the way, the American healthcare system is NOT envied around the world"; but 900,000 Mexicans a year are risking arrest and deportation ... and death by dehydration in the Arizona deserts ...every year, in part because they can access (at little or no cost to them) medical services which are not available in their home country.

This sounds not only envious, but downright avaricious.

Let's look at who does NOT envy the American health-care system.

How about the French?

Matt, do you work for a living? Do you pay your own way, or do you sit back and let someone else pay your bills?

In France, recently, students (and I am only assuming that you are a student, correct me if I'm wrong) rioted because the French socialist government attempted to pass a law stating that people who were hired into a job could be fired in the first year of employment if the employee proved to be incompetent.

Think of that. What a concept. You are hired to do a job, but you can't do it; so your employer discharges you to find employment for which you are qualified. Current French law does not permit that, and students (who are unemployed, because no employer is willing to accept the risk of hiring someone who thinks they are ENTITLED to a job even if they can't/won't do it) are literally up in arms. They can't get a job, but they are outraged by the threat that if they DO get a job, they may be fired because they can't do it.

That's the face of Socialism, Matt. That' s the system you are defending.

Let's scroll back and look at a word slyly embedded two paragraphs back:


ENTITLED

What does that mean?

It means that people who are ENTITLED to something don't have to earn it; they don't have to prove that they freely enter into a quid-pro-quo relationship with their employer (or their government). It is, if you will, a God-Given right.

Got to the Constitution of the United States and look at the Bill of Rights. These are "entitlements", because 226 years ago (give or take, given the lengthy process of agreeing the rights are truly God-given) our Founding Fathers determined that citizens are definitively ENTITLED to some freedoms and/or rights.

Note that the constitution doesn't guarantee that, for example, you are ENTITLED to happiness. It only suggests that all men are (entitled) to the pursuit of happiness. That is, the Government (big-G) won't guarantee happiness; but the government (little-g) won't stand in your way if you have the initiative and the determination to actively pursue it yourself.

You don't seem to have a lot of faith in America, Matt. It may be because you have always been given everything you needed (even though your parents spoiled you rotten in the process). It may be because you are, at heart, a slacker who has no intention of earning your own way in life. It may even be because you have been seduced by a hopeful philosophy such as communism ("from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs") which seemed to have promised you "something for nothing".

Communism isn't like that. Instead, as the Russian people learned over 74 years of painful experience, that communism and its handmaiden Socialism is more likely to guarantee you nothing in return for contributing everything you have or can produce.

Because you offer only cat-calls and slogans, Matt, it's difficult for me to understand your resistance to the concept that "you get what you earn", so some of my assumptions may seem far from applicable. Well, your cognitive processes don't demonstrate an intellectual response to the proposition inherent in the article, so perhaps you may forgive me if I don't seem to respond positively; after all, your comments do seem more nihilistic than constructive criticism, so how seriously can we take your disjointed rambling?

Let me put this in the most simplistic terms (which are all you seem to be able to grasp), and in the kindest, most gentle manner possible:

You don't think about life. You have no philosophy. You are nothing more than a spoiler, willing to criticize the expressions of people with more experience and more hard-learned lessons .. only because you can. Everything you write is less significant than graffiti on the wall of a tavern mens-room, and as likely to be taken seriously. If you ever had an original thought, it would be
original only in your own mind, and only because you are too drunk with cheap beer to realize that you are parroting the words of the last person who spoke to you.

Matt, that last person regrets having spoke to you because you make their words look bad. You embarrass them.

If you were sufficiently thoughtful to think for yourself, you would not have
written those disjointed drivel.

Oh, as as for your claim to "... know, because I've been there"? I doubt it. I strongly suspect you have been no further from the place where you were whelped than the nearest tavern; your words are not as cosmopolitan as the illiterate scratchings in your middle-school English Composition essays ... you know, those penciled scrawls with the big red "F" on them.

Which may be why ("So somebody's been fuckin lying to ya on that point, m'kay?")...strongly suggests you don't know how to spell "Fucking", "You", or "Okay".

Go get a job, or get an education.

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry the Geek

The gun debate: Think militia, as in training

The gun debate: Think militia, as in training | ajc.com

(H/T Conservative Scalawag)

Those well-intentioned folks who would restrict access to firearms (eg: "Gun Grabbers") have a quiver full of arrows which they can use to propose "Sensible Gun-Control Laws".

One of the "sensible" requirements which they propose is "training".

Lord knows I'm in favor of training. I spend a lot of time on shooting ranges, and I see people who aren't trained and who have no clue what to do when they have a gun in their hand. Scares the pee-wadding out of me. The first thing I want to do is to walk over to them and make gentle suggestions about what they should do that is right ... not what they do that is wrong. They usually get the idea within the first five minutes, and 'new shooters' are typically eager to learn the nuances of safe gun-handling.

This isn't what the Gun Grabbers have in mind.

Instead, they want to legislate a minimal 30+ hours of formal education, and to certify every gun owner as being 'safe' to shoot. At least, that's what they say.

The truth of the matter is, they aren't so much interested in safe gun-handling as they are in registering the folks who own guns, so they know whose door to knock on when it comes time to take those guns away from them.

What? You say I'm paranoid?

Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Look at the history of Lundgen and SKS "Assault Rifles" in California.

If we ever doubted that "Registration" equals "confiscation", this defines the process. (A man who was moving to California from out-of-state asked if his SKS was legal. The California Attorney General affirmed that it was legal, requiring only registration of the rifle. Two years later, California changed its laws and the man, because his his firearm was 'registered', was legally required to turn in his SKS without compensation.)


Let's look at the opinion of Mr. Richard Oppelt's opinion, as stated in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"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." —- full text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The judiciary has interpreted the Second Amendment to exclude the first part of this foundation of our constitutional set of rights. We have permitted our government to abandon the commitment to a well-regulated militia. Perhaps a solution to the senseless shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois is to reinvigorate the commitment to a well-regulated militia by mandating training as a requirement for gun ownership.

The author has "permitted" nothing in regard to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In stating the 'exclusion' of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, he has defined the amendment as being an individual right, disregarding the militia content.

What is left of that amendment neither states nor implies "training" as a precursor to the right to Keep and Bear Arms; yet he proposes it as a requirement, which is nowhere in the Constitution. Everything in this first phase of his quote is automatically rendered void.

The problem is not guns per se. It is when those guns are in the hands of people who should not have them. A requirement that gun owners undergo mandatory training would provide an opportunity to assess the fitness of a gun owner to have the weapon. Those people on medication for mental illness could be restricted until they have recovered.

It's true; "the problem is not guns per se. It is when these guns are in the hands of people who should not have them."

The problem is defined; but the author makes no attempt to pragmatically define those "... who should not have them." Nor does he offer a reasonable definition of that group of people. Reading his statement, the presumption is that the problem is with gun-owners who are not trained. That's a fallacious statement. "Gun Violence" has nothing to do with training, but it has everything to do with malicious intent. Legal firearms owners, and those who adhere to local (county?) requirements necessary to acquire a Concealed Handgun License are definitively not criminally inclined. They may not be trained in the safe gun-handling practices needed to demonstrate the ability to safely use a handgun, but this is not a source of public peril.

Mandatory training would not take the guns from criminals, but would better assure a well-regulated militia to guard the populace from criminal elements. Perhaps over time it would reduce the availability of weapons to criminals, as the waiting period on buying a gun would be replaced by training that the applicant would have to complete before receiving the weapon. This would facilitate the background checks necessary to authorize the gun buyer to be included as part of the militia.

No. No, and No.

The entire thrust of the original article is obviously to present impediments to those law-abiding citizens who would be willing to present evidence of their responsibility of firearms ownership. The author admits that his proposed steps " ... would not take the guns from criminals ..." and if he were sincere about making a 'safer world' for us all, this would be his priority. Instead of presenting a scheme which would restrict firearms access to criminals, he presents a scheme which would restrict access to firearms for law-abiding citizens.

Different levels of training would be required depending on the weapon. Huntsmen with long guns might only be required to attend a periodic refresher course timed with the various hunting seasons. The training for guns in urban areas would be different. People having guns to defend their home would be trained for that use, including the safe storage of weapons. They would also be taught to use the weapon effectively. Lastly, members of the militia carrying weapons in public urban areas would obtain the highest level of training. They would be trained in not only the handling of the weapon but also conflict resolution.

Again, no. He proposes 'levels' of training, which have nothing to do with reducing crime; he only proposes burdensome, expensive and difficult state-regulated training courses which would often duplicate current training (eg: "Hunter Safety") without the benefit to honest citizens.

Providing mandatory training would be a new service industry, funded partially by fees paid by owners and partially by our taxes. Commercial interests could prosper. Conscientious people should embrace training and engaging with other people having similar interests in responsible gun ownership.

Oh, swell! Not only has he suggested encumbering our system of allowing honest citizens to use the firearms they already own, but he has established a system which imposes new taxes, fees and other expenses for the "privilege" of exercising our rights under the Second Amendment. Apparently, there is nothing under the Constitution which is available without fees. (Consider a "Fee to attend church" or a "Fee to write a letter to the Editor of your local newspaper." This guy is a total dweeb!

With the right of gun ownership comes the responsibility of being part of the militia. However, legislatures cannot take action in this direction until such time as the judiciary puts the pieces of the Second Amendment back together and validates the requirement for a well-regulated militia for modern times.

No, No, No, No!

The 2nd Amendment does not establish a RESPONSIBILITY to be a member of the Militia, it establishes a RIGHT to be a member. Also, and more important, it establishes a right to personally possess the basic tool of a Militia: a firearm.

If you never understood the Second Amendment, read this article. And everything this guy says ... assume that he has turned it around entirely back-assward.

That's the closest to 'reason' you will ever get, if you are willing to waste your time reading this opinion.

Microstamping Ammunition: New York Considering Bill

Gun measure caught in political cross fire -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY

It looks like the New York Assembly is considering a Microstamping Ammunition bill. The Senate may follow with their own (probably not dissimilar) version. Stay tuned, film at 11.

Note: No response today from Todd Lizotte to my many questions regarding his new Microstamping technology, in spite of the fact that he came here and volunteered to discuss the issues.
____________________________________________
UPDATE: 05-JUL-2008

According to a 27-JUN-2008 NRA-IRA Alert emailed to members today, this bill (A09819) has not been passed during the just-ended legislative session.

The effect is that it will not pass. Bills with this status will not be considered in the next legislative session; if there remains an interest in the issue, a new bill will have to be proposed. Given this year's underwhelming lack of interest by the New York Assembly, chances are this will not happen.

Color this bill dead Dead DEAD!

Microstamping Ammunition: Part 0 of Todd Lizette Interview

Cogito Ergo Geek: Microstamping Ammunition:

Yesterday we received a comment on the "Microstamping Ammunition" article from Todd Lizotte, the man who invented the technology.

In his comment, he invited questions. So we spent a while throwing out perhaps 60% of the questions which came most immediately to mind, and settled back to allow him time to respond.

We did not receive his reply.

No response from Mr. Lizotte.

Not tonight.


Well, it takes a while to catch up with your email in-basket. We can understand why it would take a while to formulate responses.

There were a lot of questions, and scenarios described, and they were framed in an open format, so it was not a matter of simply saying "yes" or "no" to each question.

While we're waiting, here is the introduction to the email which I posted to Mr. Lizotte:

Dear Mr. Lizotte,

Thank you for your comment on my recent Cogito Ergo Geek article: "Industrial Laser Solutions:
http://tinyurl.com/3v9kyx

Your comment is searchable here:
http://tinyurl.com/4fhj63

I am grateful for both your concern, and your willingness to discuss the issues. May we use these points of apparent contention as an opportunity to open a dialogue?

Looking at Microstamping as a legal concern, rather than a strictly technological concern, gun owners (who I vainly claim to represent) want to know more about the details of the process in both the manufacturing and the societal ramifications of accepting Microstamping as a legal requirement. It is my hope that you are willing to openly represent the technological end of the discussion, and that you are willing to allow me to publish your views in an interview format.

Unless you specifically forbid me to publish your comments, may I take it that your responses are tacit authorization to publish them on my weblog?

(More tomorrow, when I will probably receive Mr. Lizotte's first reply of many.)

Why I have always admired Sammy Davis, Jr.

HT/Sondra K.

"Shucks! I wouldn't put it on, 'less I was good at it."

The Brits!: Pirates can claim UK asylum

Pirates can claim UK asylum - Times Online

THE Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.

Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain.

The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.

In 2005 there were almost 40 attacks by pirates and 16 vessels were hijacked and held for ransom. Employing high-tech weaponry, they kill, steal and hold ships’ crews to ransom. This year alone pirates killed three people near the Philippines.

WTF!~

Ow, wait! This is The Nanny State speaking, and it's Alice in Wonderland speaking, so whatever seams right and reasonable to you is suspect because victims are always in the wrong, and villains must always be protected. Poor sweet babies they are.

I've talked before about pirates, victims, Sharia Law and Somalie (and cabbages and kings).

My opinion on Pirates does not include special consideration of Jack Sparrow:

They're pirates?

Hang 'em all, and let their bones rot in public "For The Encouragement of Others". (Or more pertinently, "Pour Les Encouragement d'outre", which is an archaic French Military term referring to the practice of imposing corporal punishment upon soldiers to teach their fellows that encroachment upon accepted practices will not be allowed).

No, I do not much like the French, Sam I Am, but some concepts are universal and among them is that a Pirate shall not be allowed to live.

They're predators, they're barbarians, and they do not recognize the Rule of Law. The consider themselves Beyond the Law and, as they are neither individually nor collectively Stephen Segal, they don't get to break the rules with impunity.

Short story: They are pirates, and if they are caught pirating they are dead men.

Unless they are caught by the Brits, apparently, who are so terribly, terribly concerned with the rights of their fellow man (who sometimes don't respect the same rights upon which they rely upon to 'give them a break) that the authorities are more willing to give the pirates a walk than to prosecute them.

Why?

Because The Brits may be required by circumstances to find the Pirates guilty of ... well .. "piracy". and The Brits may consequently required (by law) to turn the Pirates over to the country of their origin.

And the Pirates' Country of Origin may turn out to be one which is ruled by a Barbarian Code (Sharia), which (a) proscribes piracy, and (b) punishes said proscribed activity by mutilation.

The Brits aren't so concerned about what the Pirates may do, as they are concerned about what the Pirates' Home Country may do.

Note that this is the same country in which the pirates were born and raised, and in which they Presumably) understand might be the consequences for Piratical action.

So, the pirates are born and raised under a certain set of rules (however barbaric), and deliberately choose to risk the known set of punishment established by their homelane; yet if Somalian citizens choose to predate British subjects and are caught in the act, The Brits are prevented from turning the Pirates over to their own government simply because their home government is "too harsh" under British standards?

I offer you this phrase for consideration:

"Hail Britania!
Britania Rules the Waves.

Britons never never never
Shall Be Slaves"

Look it up.
__________________________-

Well, as Flip Wilson might have mentioned 35 years ago, that's not part of "The Court of What's Happenin' Now".

Serves 'em right, the Nanny-State Freaking Idiots.

And when American court make the same ruling, we'll deserve whatever happens to us, too.

One more thought:

"From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli".

Look it up.
..

Microstamping Ammunition

Cogito Ergo Geek: Industrial Laser Solutions

Last week we talked about the (supposedly) 'sole-source" vendor of "Microstamping Technology" - the mechanical process which allows firarms to stamp an unique code on any cartridge fired from that firearm.

*(Note: this is entirely different from "Encoded Ammunition", which stamps an unique code on each round of ammunition during the manufacturing process, and which does not reference the unique firearms which fires the encoded ammunition.)*

This week we received a comment from the inventor of "Microstamping Technology", Todd Lizotte. He noted the difference from "Microstamping Ammunition" and "Encoded Ammunition", and generously offered:

" If you have any questions, please send them to me and I will answer them directly."

Taking him at his word, tonight we sent Mr. Lizotte a reply which detailed many of the concerns of legitimate, legal and responsible Firearms Owners with the expectation that in due time he will respond to them individually and collectively.

We think that we have represented the concerns of firearms owners with fairness and respect, and the questions that we asked are entirely of the "What if ...?" genre.

Because we intended to evoke thoughtful, well-considered responses from a man who presumably was aware of the issues involved (both technical and legal), we made no effort to soft-pedal the question. We are reluctant to be confrontational, and even less willing to undermine the readiness of Mr Lizotte to respond candidly to the posed questions, so the actual content of the questions posed will not here be presented "out of context".

If it needs to be said (and we think it does), we owe a debt of gratitude to a man who presents a technological advance which is so universally opposed by legitimate firearms owners, and then proposes to defend it in a public forum.

As soon as we receive a response, which may take a while, we will deliver them to you unedited, unexpurgated, and without comment.

Thank you, Mr. Lizotte.