NRA Attacks "UNIVERSAL" Background Checks

NRA chief says The Gods Gun-Grabbers Must Be Crazy! 

OXON HILL, Md. (AP) — The head of the National Rifle Association is attacking President Barack Obama's call for mandatory background checks for gun owners.

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre says those who favor mandatory background checks may be, quote, "insane."

LaPierre says background checks won't make schools safer. Instead, he says, the checks will let the government tax gun owners or take their weapons. He spoke to activists Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington.

Obama has called on Congress to tighten gun laws following the Connecticut school shooting that killed 26 children and educators. The president supports a series of reforms, including mandatory background checks and a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Conservatives say they are increasingly confident Congress will reject any reforms

The 'reasonable measure' proposed by Our Dear Leader would mandate background checks (by NCIS) on the majority, if not all, transfers of firearms. [A February 10, 2013 USA TODAY article pointed out that the presidential proposal recognized"...common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes."]

Unfortunately,  as is the case of virtually ALL of the Obama Initiated Legislation (eg:  Obamacare), the president finds it comfortable to casually throw out vague reassurances.  We're not confident that these exceptions would actually appear in the statute, let alone that they will be recognized, understandable, or satisfactorily comprehensive.

"He Was For It, Until He Was Against It"
{note: all links in this article open on a separate page}

The MSM, not only the Liberal Press (but then, I repeat myself) has had a field day for the past six weeks, with an earlier statement by the NRA than much of the membership "was in favor of Universal Background Checks".

In point of fact, many (if not most) gun shows are now including a requirement for vendors (those who rent a vendor table, whether they are a federally licensed dealer or not) to include a "National Criminal Background Check" for every firearm transaction,    These transactions are usually stranger-to-stranger transactions.  Yes, they are still "private transactions:, but most of us who are honest citizens have no problem with the current procedure ... which merely checks the identify of the buyer in order to check that there is no criminal background on the part of the buyer (hence the name "Criminal Background Check").

BY FEDERAL LAW, all details of a successful transaction MUST be deleted within a relatively short period of time (hours, not weeks) and the information must not be made available to ANYONE outside the system, no matter the apparent justification.

In other words, there are NO elements of record keeping which include tracking information;  no governmental agency can subsequently search a database to see who has how many guns, let alone their description and/or serial number.

The value of this process is that (1) criminals, and any other person legally ineligible to posess a firearm, can be prevented from completing the transaction; and (2) honest citizens need not be concerned that a future oppressive agency might apply ex post facto laws to past transactions.  This also applies to a future "re-interpretation" of existing law.

(Note that EX POST FACTO laws are specifically prohibited by  Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.of the Constitution of the United Stats of America.)

What this means, is that when NRA members and their representatives say that they have no serious objection to application of NCBC laws to gun-show firearms transaction,  they are speaking within the framework of a narrow definition.  That is to say, we (firearms owners, sellers, and buyers) consider it a "responsible policy" to make a NCBC part oe normal "cost of doing business" in this context,

However, that is NOT to say that we are willing to allow the Federal, State, or Local government stick their Imperial Noses into Our Business.  (If the Cow Palace, Sports Arena or other host organization which owns the property wherein the Gun Show is hosted decides that a NCBC is required for all transactions, then the sponsoring organization has the choice of accepting the conditional use permit or finding a different venue; it's a private matter, to be adjudicated between the responsible parties ... but NOT by The Feds!)  Under the auspices of the Second Amendment, that's as it should be.  And no, the "Commerce Clause does not, and should not, apply here.


Unfortunately, the Federal Government and their useful idiots minions (the MSM), have been working very hard to make it appear as though "we" have changed our tune.

In a disgraceful parody of the rightful approbation applied to Senator John Kerry (he served in Viet Nam),  they have literally  misinterpreted the circumstances [A 2004 CNN article provides Kerry's explanation for his comment that "I actually did vote for the $87 BILLION dollars, before I voted against it:]T

The two situations ... NRA's apparent "flip flop" on "Universal Background Checks" and Kerry's admitted late-date change-of-mind ... are not comparable at all.

What is is, is, that .

"It All Depends On What The Meaning Of 'IS', Is"

In the actual event, the NRA is not entirely comfortable with imposing NCBC status to "gun show" firearm sales, but that was only because efforts of the Federal (and local) governments to impose themselves in the decision-making process   Obviously, Big Government does not consider Private Citizens competent to act responsibly in private business transactions,

[Something magical happens when we elect Joe from Next Door to office; he changes from the thinking man we knew when we voted for him, into an elitist snob whose only goal is to make a big splash in The Capital so he will be seen to be "doing something" ... and thus increase his chances of being re-elected to office.  Career politicians .. a pox on their houses!  Not a universal phenomenon, though; I've been voting for my Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio for 15 years.  Not a quote .... merely a private observation.]

I've never been a big fan of Wayne LaPierre, and I've been disappointed by the NRA leadership from time to time over the years.

But here, I think he's  ... well, not "bang on", but he's on to SOMETHING.  By implication, if not in the important specifics.

It occurs to me that no law is useful without enforcement.  Nobody knows HOW many laws exist which make a certain set of circumstances a "crime", but surely if we are required to submit to Executive Oversight (don't fool yourself that its "Merely Administrative") the "administrators"  and the enforcement arm must supplement new laws by a means of tracking transactions.

For example, if Joe Blow sells a gun to Joe Sixpack and doesn't report it, then Joe Sixpack is responsible for  abiding to all applicable laws,  And if someone steals that gun from Joe Sixpack, then (whether or not he reports the theft) according to OTHER proposed laws .. he must report the theft within x-number or hours to the appropriate authorities   ... oh, it gets very confusing from this point doesn't it?.

But the enforcement officers can only administer both laws ("Universal Background Checks" and "Reporting Stolen Weapons") if they know that the stolen weapon rightly belongs to Joe Sixpack, and no longer to Joe Blow.. So what happens if Joe Blow is found with the stolen weapon?

So, the authorities must have an audit trail to document that the gun legally belongs to Sixpack, and not to Blow.

That, my friends, demands registration of firearms ownership.

All of the evils associated with registration may be applied, even (or especially) those which perhaps were never expected by the elitist snobs who enacted the law (because they had nothing better to do today, and thought that they had to make something up and declare that they had done it "for the children".)

Who suffers?

Both Joes suffer..  And their families suffer, including their children, because the Two Joes had broken the law, and that is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, and/or other penalties yet to be named.  And these are circumstances which the elitist snobs are completely ignoring.  The primary wage-earners of two families are convicted of violating an unjust, arbitrary law.  A law which serves NO useful purpose because until this not-unlikely set of circumstances applied, neither man was a "criminal".  But they are now!

OH.

And, of course, they will confiscate the gun. 

SUMMARY:

The MSM castigates Wayne LaPierre because he rants and raves and rails against potential governmental injustice, which Our Dear Leader is determined to impose upon us arbitrarily because he believes that only the Government can properly administer The New Laws.

They call LaPierre crazy, because he predicts abuse and injustice and a lot of other stuff.  (Yes, the Chinese may hack the database, but I don't believe that's the worst thing that can happen.)

I don't fear the competence of the Chinese government as much as I fear the incompetence of our own government!

[I leave you with this one final link,  If you have avoided all others, I encourage you to search here . to see what great minds and patriots have historically had to say about laws both good and bad.]

Buyer Remorse: Getting Caught!

Mark Kelly Buys Assault Rifle:
[link opens in new window]

PHOENIX (AP) — The husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords went to a Tucson gun store a week ago to buy a .45-caliber handgun and a military-style rifle the day before he appeared with his wife at the supermarket where she was wounded in a rampage two years ago. It didn't take long for the purchase to draw criticism from gun-rights supporters.
Mark Kelly said he bought the AR-15-style weapon to draw attention to the relative ease with which people can get the type of gun that the shooter used in the Newtown school and Colorado movie theater killings. Gun-rights advocates attacked him for being a hypocrite for buying the same gun that he has been lobbying Congress to ban.

Apparently, after he started getting flack from the public he went on facebook to explain that he was doing it for the children, or a similarly lame (and too-late) excuse. Admit it Mark.   You're a closet gun nut and you have been outed.    You'll end up in a shoot-out like "Day of the Evil Gun",  or "Blue Steel".
   (Not the lead ... the gun-maddened characters played by Arthur Kennedy and Ron Silver!)


Don't bother trying to talk your way out of it.  Your credibility is gone.  You're a gun owner, and as you've been preaching, people who have guns are irresponsible can't be trusted to use them responsibly,  and want to shoot people who don't, and lie all the time, and are evil, and ....  and ... and stuff ......

You're one of 'us', now, and nobody will trust you or believe in you, ever again.

[insert evil laugh here]
_____________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:   March 27, 2013:

Arizona gun store cancels assault rifle sale to Giffords' husband  

(Dated March 26, 2013)

PHOENIX — An Arizona gun store owner has canceled the sale of an assault rifle to the husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, after discovering that he made the purchase to highlight the need for gun control.
Doug MacKinlay, owner of Diamondback Police Supply, said he sent Mark Kelly a refund last week on the AR-15 type weapon after learning the purchase was not for personal use but meant to highlight the need for gun control.
Kelly, who along with his wife is a top campaigner for curbs to military-style weapon ownership, had not yet taken possession of the semi-automatic rifle.
In a posting on Facebook on Monday, MacKinlay said: "While I support and respect Mark Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the ... rifle from us was for reasons other than for his personal use."
"In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my company's best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store," he added.

See?  I'm not the only one with an evil laugh; I just don't have as good an excuse as the FFL Dealer who got the last laugh on this politically motivated hoplophobe.

How the White House silenced gun control groups - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

How the White House silenced gun control groups - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com:

President Barack Obama’s gun control agenda is looking more doomed by the day, but gun control advocates still haven’t said a word to complain. That’s no accident.

The White House knew its post-Newtown effort would require bringing key gun control groups into the fold. So the White House offered a simple arrangement: the groups could have access and involvement, but they’d have to offer silence and support in exchange.

The implied rules, according to conversations with many of those involved: No infighting. No second-guessing in the press. Support whatever the president and Vice President Joe Biden propose. And most of all, don’t make waves or get ahead of the White House.

In exchange: a voice in the discussions, a role in whatever final agreement is made and weekly meetings at the White House with Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed — provided they don’t discuss what happens there.
“The implication is very, very strong when they are calling these meetings and we are all sitting there,” said one regular attendee, who like the others, would only speak about them anonymously. “It’s not like they’re being bullies, it’s them bringing everybody together, not being one-off meetings with groups that might be interested in things other than the bottom line, not providing the forum for that kind of stuff.”

“You’re glad to be in the room,” another participant in the Reed meetings said. “Because this issue has been dead for a long time and now there’s a real opportunity there.”

POLITICO is a very left-wing, Liberal website. And they're telling us that anti-Second-Amendment representatives are being "allowed" to be 'part of the process' in the effort to  determine a rational approach to interpreting the Second Amendment .. as long as they don't disagree with the President.

Sounds like a bull in the room, without any horns.

But this isn't the kind of mums-the-word tacit support that the Southern Policy Law Center is reporting, according to a March 5, 2013 report from the Democratic Underground:

The number of anti-government, far-right extremist groups has soared to record levels since 2008 and they are becoming increasingly militant, according to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It says the number of groups in the “Patriot” movement stood at 1,360 in 2012, up from 149 in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected president, an increase of 813%. The report said the rise was driven by opposition to Obama and the “spluttering rage” over federal attempts at gun control.
Those who were identified as “militia” groups or the paramilitary wing of the Patriot movement, numbered 321, up from 42 in 2008, the SPLC said in its report.
Concern over a “truly explosive growth” of groups on the radical right, along with a rise in domestic terrorist plots, has prompted the SPLC to write to US attorney general Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, warning of the potential for domestic terrorism and urging them create a new, inter-agency task force to assess whether it has adequate resources to deal with it.

Who ARE these lap-dog groups which are being reported by Politoco?

But he’s forced a major change on some of Washington’s noisiest advocates: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Third Way, Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Americans for Responsible Solutions, the organization founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, Mark Kelly. In past fights, gun control groups sparred with each other and got used to dictating the agenda to allies in Congress.
Now they’re just happy to be included in the discussion, and still holding out hope that something might happen.

[emphasis added]

So, we're NOT talking about the NRA, or the CRKBA, or any other pro-gun rights groups.  We're hearing here that the president is including some of the most virulent anti-gun groups in the country sitting in on what we can only assume to be policy making decisions.  

Are there any pro-gun, pro-second amendment groups represented in these deliberations?  So far, no word.

The original quote specifically said the "gun control" groups, not "gun rights" groups, are included.  But they're forbidden to "make waves".  Does this mean that the President is laying down the law to these "gun control" groups?

Is the president getting tough on anti-gunners?

We don't know. I haven't yet been able to find any reference to the inclusion of gun-rights in these discussions.  Are they there?  If so, when will we hear about them?  If not .. why not?  The Internet is not the ultimate reference source .. at best, all we read there is what the Main Stream Media and the occasional blogger have to report.

We will continue to research this issue;  we can hope that non-governmental agencies which are "part of the process" will eventually include RKBA groups.  Although, it's difficult to tell what influence they might make of presidential decisions.    And I'm leary about only anti-gun groups being included, if they are not (as the article implies, but does not specifically state) permitted to have a voice.

If the anti-s are not given a voice, will the pro-gun guys get to have their say?  Personally, I would prefer a situation when both pro- and anti- gun groups have at least a voice.  I don't agree with the anti-gun folks, but I do think that their voice should be heard.

Let the arguments be decided on their merits.  And let both sides be heard.

Shooting gloves .. a good idea?

Shooting Wire:

SMYRNA, GA - GASTON J. GLOCK style LP, the purveyors of fine quality hunting and shooting sports apparel and accessories, is pleased to announce their new glove line, made from the finest reindeer leather, is now available for purchase. Made in Hungary, the glove line is currently composed of: Gloves, Unlined Hunting Gloves and Lined Hunting Gloves.

It's a funny coincidence, but aren't they all?

Over the years .. and especially since I have experienced some special 'sensitivity' (read: it sucks!) from the skin on my own hands,  I've contemplated wearing gloves to make it easier to shoot without damaging my hands.

As it happens, no matter what I do since 2008, by the end of a match I find that my skin has injuries like paper-cuts .. only, worse.  So I've been wearing plastic gloves .. even while I was working the 201? Area 1 match as the Chronograph Stage "shooter".

Last weekend, I had a student who was wearing gloves.  Not "rubber gloves:", for any obvious reason, but because .. well, I didn't know why.  They were just cloth gloves, with perhaps a little bit of leather reinforcement here and there.  Honestly, I didn't pay that much attention to the details.

He was having some problems hitting his mark; he usually hit low, and to the left, which suggested that he was 'pushing' the trigger.

I didn't mention .. anything! .. until the last stage, when I suggested that he might have better "trigger sensitivity" if he was shooting with bare-fingers, so he could feel the trigger.

He tried shooting without his gloves; he bombed.  So much for my good advice!  I said: "Okay, so maybe it isn't the gloves", and he agreed.  Unfortunately, we didn't have another stage to shoot, so we couldn't really evaluate the situation objectively.

I don't know if shooting with gloves improved his accuracy, or control  The point is, that HE thought it was providing some benefit to him.  I am not saying that I was WRONG to suggest that he shoot without gloves .. only that the situation was so unique (can you get more "unique" than to be "unique"  I don't think so!) that it was worth the effort to attempt an experiment.

Fortunately, he was willing to give it a try.
Unfortunately, it didn't work.

He shot WORSE without gloves, than with gloves.   It was what he was accustomed, I guess.  Who knew?

Ultimately, he was able to shoot safely wearing gloves, so after I had determined to my own satisfaction (it's a class, not a match),  that he met the minimal safety requirements and he was NOT compromising his own competitiveness, I backed off.

I don't know if "most" people can shoot safely while wearing gloves.  But this shooter could, and that was good enough for me.

I probably have a lot more to say on this subject .. I'm still not convinced that It's A Good Idea ... but if it works for him?

It's not my job to be critical. Only to teach my students to shoot safely. And he did.

'Nuff Said.

Geek KaBOOM! Part II

I heard from my gunsmith today about the STI EDGE (10mm) which blew a case last weekend. 

Actually, I had some information earlier this week, when I took it in to Rob's shop for an evaluation.  Apparently, the cause of the problem was that a case split from side to side ... no definitive cause of that event .. and the case bulge prevented the slide from cycling.  I still don't know the cause, whether from fatigue of the (x number of many times reloaded?) brass or an overcharge of powder.  I didn't see any problem with the brass when I inspected the loaded round, and I doubt the overcharge.

Here's what Rob had to say:

Got your pistol apart. It was a bit of a challenge to get the barrel and slide apart (due to brass flow), but was able to do it and I was successful in removing the entire case intact.

Damage:

The grip is destroyed. It is cracked in at least two places, the worst being split all the way through at the rear of the magwell. It will need to be replaced.

Barrel: It appears the hood is bent up at the rear, causing it to drag significantly in the slide when removing the barrel for cleaning. When I reassemble the slide, barrel and frame, the slide operates freely. But there is less room near the front, so when removing the barrel from the slide, the bent hood becomes an issue. It is likely not safe to use and should be replaced.

Theory: I cleaned the barrel for inspection, and noticed when I drop a live round in the chamber, there is significant play side to side, but even more important to me is that the case drops too far into the chamber. I probably shouldn’t say anything until I know more, but I have a hunch there may be a headspace issue. If I am right, that could have (and likely would have) contributed to a case head blowout such as you experienced. I do not have headspace gauges for 10mm, an issue I intend to resolve. Once a “Go” and “No Go” gauge arrives, I will be able to determine if headspace is a contributing factor.

Further theory: Often a double charge causes massive, catastrophic failure. You didn’t experience this, which again leads me back to headspace as a question. I don’t know about bullets slipping back into the case and what the likely result of this condition is. I know bullet slip will significantly increase chamber pressures, but I haven’t seen enough guns in that “known” state to see what the end result was.

The important thing is that I have not found any noticeable damage to the slide or frame. I haven’t fully inspected all the small parts, but first glance tells me they are fine, even the extractor. The sear spring is bent, but it  looks like someone peened the side of the sear spring to tighten the fit to the frame, and in doing so, bent the sear leg a little. It is repairable, but the cost of a sear spring makes me think replacing it is a better choice.

If head space is an issue, what about warranty with STI? I don’t know how long you have had it, how many rounds, or if they void their warranty when handloads are used. Those are questions you’d need to find the answers to. I don’t think warranty is a likely option, but if headspace is the culprit, that is nothing you could have created yourself without a chamber reamer.

It will be several days for chamber gauges, but I’ll let you know what I find out then.

I replied to his email, saying (basically) that I wanted to fix the gun, but I need a parts-and-labor cost evaluation before I decide.  I would like to make the gun whole again, to restore it to the original condition.

Beyond that, I'm thinking about adding a C-more sight, because it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to use the gun competitively because .. damn!  I can't see the iron sights very well any more!

If the only added cost is parts and installation to add a dot-sight, I'm pretty happy with that.  I love the gun, and I know I'll feel more comfortable being able to see the sights and the target.  Moving to OPEN DIVISION with a LIMITED DIVISION gun isn't the wisest or most cost-effective solution, but it satisfies many of my personal criteria, so perhaps I can live with the expense if it resolves my current vision issues.

I've asked Rob to give me a price list for restoring the gun to the original condition, vs the same with the added expense of adding a C-more sight.  I still have The Beloved Kimber if I want to shoot in Limited (or Limited 10, or Singlestack) Division, but I think that the Edge is a superior pistol.

The question remains, whether the Edge is safe to shoot.  I still don't know why the ammunition was suddenly not "safe to shoot", but I have to say ... if my guns have to blow up I'm glad I have the 10mm STI Edge in my hands.  That may not make much sense to you, but I bought it because I thought it was a platform which would be "safe" even if the worst happened.

Well, "The Worst" happened, and I didn't get hurt.  I don't know why or how yet, but I do know that my confidence in The Edge is stronger than ever.

I'll keep you posted.

Eric Holder: Yes, Your Government Can Drone You to Death on U.S. Soil (UPDATED) - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Eric Holder: Yes, Your Government Can Drone You to Death on U.S. Soil (UPDATED) - Hit & Run : Reason.com:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts. 

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

(emphasis added)


Well, that's comforting.  If The President and Eric Holder should decide, for example, that it is in the National Interest to dive-bomb my home in the middle of a college town, I'm sure that I would die happy knowing that "My President" and Eric Holder would lose a night's sleep over it.

(The last sight registered in my cold, dead eyes?  I hope not!)

The Criminology of Firearms

JURIST - Forum:The Criminology of Firearms (February 27, 2013)

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents. Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection." Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890's shows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
Throughout this essay I highlight dramatic recantations by criminologists who previously endorsed stringent gun control. For example, Professor David Mustard has stated ......

I STRONGLY recommend that you read the original scholarly article. Read the whole thing. Click on the links, and read all of THEM.

You might even want to save some of the referenced PDF files; I did, because they are saying much the same thing that I have been saying for years.

The last partial paragraph in the above quote highlights the special value:  there are quotes from scholars who have been aggressively anti-gun but who, after reading new studies about  gun-related homicide and gun violence -- realized that there had been NO studies on those subjects until well after the 1960's.  

I was made aware of this article from "The Lamplighter" a Libertarian newsletter to which I subscribe.  I am not a Libertarian, I'm not sure I'm even a complete Conservative, but when I read articles such as this one which support my (admittedly) strong
personal views and opinions, I tend to keep track of what they have to say in the future.

This article was found in Volume 15, Issue 10 of the Lamplighter, besides in the original version from "Jurist".

There's a blog article in an earlier (February 27, 2013) issue of the Lamplighter:  "Opinion Meet Fact: Gun Control Doesn't".  I recommend it, if only for the closing punchline of this very short article.

But I won't spoil the punchline; you'll have to read it for yourself.

The Gear You Need to Gut a Deer | Field & Stream

The Gear You Need to Gut a Deer | Field & Stream:

Store-bought field dressing kits often include a bunch of unnecessary items for a hunter who’s faced with gutting a deer and getting it home. This D.I.Y. kit fits into a gallon-size plastic zippered bag, which also serves as a handy place to put down a knife while you wrestle with a transcending colon. At the truck, stash 3 gallons of clean water for rinsing out the body cavity, and a hatchet if you want to open the pelvis. Latex Gloves: Lots of field dressing gloves go up to your armpit, to turn blood away from clothing and any open cuts. But wrist-high gloves are form-fitting for a better feel and grip and still prevent blood and nicked guts from infecting small cuts. Zip-Seal Bags: Have two gallon-size bags for the heart and the liver. Paper Towels: I like to keep 15 paper towels, folded up, to use as cavity and hand wipes. Bandages: Pack these for knife nicks.  .....

Oh, Deer!

Sorry.  They actually had me thinking, for the first few sentences of this article, that they knew what they were thinking of.  (Especially in that this was gear which they planned to carry while hunting).

Sorry .. it just gets worse.

What you need (as commenters emphatically "suggested") is A Sharp Knife.

Everything else is gravy --- and excess weight.

Point About The Knife:
I have noticed that people like those bowie knives, with the sharp points.  Not good for gutting, and sure not good for skinning in the field!  If you're going to skin in the field (highly recommended if you can do it .. it helps cool the meat down QUICKLY), then you want a skinning knife, which is defined as a knife which isn't going to dig into the meat while you're trying to slit the skin at the breastbone.

A drop-point knife is best ... preferably small, light, short and very sharp on the edge!  This is a drop-point knife: more handle than blade (and those of you who insist on correct knife-culture nomenclature ... STFU; I know what I'm talking about and I know the right words like 'hilt' and stuff, but I don't care.)  The long handle (See above) gives you control and leverage, and the point prevents anything other than a smooth cut when you're skinning, while the sharp edge on good steel provides a consistent, reliable and straight cut.

One of the things the F&S stream article suggests is "... a hatchet, if you want to open the pelvis".  I'm actually inclined to bring a hatchet with me while I'm hunting.  Yes, a split pelvis makes it easier to eviscerate the body cavity,  but it also makes it easier to remove the antlers from the skull, and then chop the cervical vertebrae.  When you're dragging a carcass uphill from a deep canyon, being able to easily remove lower legs and skull makes a HUGE difference.

The same with having some rope handy.  You can drag a carcass from the antlers, but it's awkward and that's one less hand available to grab the next pinion pine limb to help you up the shale slope.  And .. gee .. I've just chopped the antlers out of the skull!  (They fit neatly into the body cavity, along with the organ meat if you're the type who wants to save them to feed the relatives whom you don't like very much.  Personally .. yuck!)

Did you notice that the article didn't include a whetstone, or a sharpening steel?

Another thing that the article suggested was water to wash the carcass.  That's not only useful to get all the hare off the bare meat (if you can skin it in place, and don't intend to keep it) but it reduces the temperature of the meat immediately.  The quicker you can cool the meat, the more likely it will still be tasty when you get it to the storage unit or the butcher.

Some game animals .. .especially Prong-horn Antelope ... are intrinsically "gamey".  You must remove the lower legs (glands there!) and viscera quickly to keep them from being inedible when you get them home.

When I was hunting Antelope in Oregon and Wyoming, the terrain was flat or rolling-hills, not hard at all to get to the game with a vehicle.  We carried not three-gallon, but five-gallon cans of water, and sluiced the meat copiously after the carcass had been skinned, eviscerated, and "lopped" (head, lower limbs, hide).  And we also brought tarps, to keep the carcass clean.  You also need to pick off the bits of hair from the skinned carcass; otherwise, when you butcher you spend more time scraping off hairs .. or you just cut off the contaminated skin.

An Antelope which yields 80 pounds of meat is a rarity; you don't want to slice off otherwise-edible meat just because it has hair glued on.  It's quicker, easier and neater to keep the hair OFF the carcass, or remove it while the meat is still moist.

What do you REALLY need to "Gut A Deer"?
So, my personal list of "what you need to gut a deer" (or other thin-skinned game animal) includes:

• Very sharp drop-point knife
• maybe a hatchet
• maybe a rope (depending on terrain)
• lots of water (at the car)
• a tarp or plastic sheet

Actually, a hatchet is not absolutely necessary; if you have  a sturdy knife, you can split the pelvis by hammering it with the heel of your hand and 'sawing' it with a knife which has a toothed back.

There are knives which are combination knife and saw; here is one example:

If you're deep in the bush, this might be worth the money at about $70.  Easier to buy, than to carry a hatchet!

City-Folk Stuff?
We could talk all night and half the morning about hunting equipment, but the point here is that many of the "items" suggested by the F&S article are just ... city-folk stuff.  You don't need it.

Like ..

• Bandaids, in case you cut yourself while dressing a deer.  Really?  You think it's possible? Bummer!
• Ibuprophen, because you get a headache as soon as you get out of the car.  (Maybe you should just, like, stay in your freaking car?)
• Latex gloves .. "to turn blood away from your clothing"? Turn your sleeves back, take off your shirt, or man up!
• Ziplock bags for heart and liver ... which fit neatly inside the body cavity, from whence they came
• Paper Towels and handie wipes ... "Eyew, I've got blood on my pinkies?  Next year, I'll just stay home and not get all bloody!"
• ZIP TIES .. to  "tie off the intestinal canal with one hand".  I have no idea what that means; I always just cut out the asshole right at the beginning, after I nut the carcass.  Is this a New Age Problem?  Did I "misunderestimate" the message?
• Gut Hooks:  I STILL have no idea; and even more  what a "Butt Out 2" is.  I must be insufficiently squeamish to hunt in The New America.  How did your ancestors ever survive, hunting for meat without Zip Ties, Gut Hooks, and Butt Out 2's?   Did they, like, just reach in there and pull that stuff OUT?   Nawww .. that would be SO gross!

Okay, you lost me at "Latex Gloves".

My Goodness, I do so love The Internet.  It's amazing to learn how far I've become disenfranchised by The East Coast .. and now Field and Stream magazine is catering to namby-pamby boy-men hunters who can't abide the feeling of blood on their hands?

I think it's a really good thing that "Field and Stream" magazine wasn't publishing in 1776.  There would never have been an American Revolution.

"OMG ...  I shot a Brit and he's bleeding.  Blood!  Quick .. anybody got a Handi-Wipe!"

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. - YouTube

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. - YouTube

What's a "budget"? 

Hat Tip to The T-Man

Geek KaBOOM!

I experienced a KaBOOM event with my STI Edge (10mm) on Saturday at the ARPC range.

The Event:
The gun did literally go BOOM instead of Bang, and there was a lot of gunsmoke venting from the breach area.  The following round in the magazine did not chamber (although the bullet was pushed deeply  into the case and there was a gouge in the nose of the bullet), and in all the excitement I can't tell you now whether the slide had cycled enough to cock the hammer.  The slide lock had been pushed about 1/8" out of position, though, and the 'catch' was no longer under the slide skirt; the movement was presumably caused by the "pressure spike", so it's reasonable to presume that the slide had cycled at least far enough to allow the slide lock to move out of place (from under the slide) without damage..

And I'm certain there was a pressure spike, although I have no idea why that could have happened.  See below.

This occurred while I was demonstrating a teaching-stage at my INTRODUCTION TO USPSA class at ARPC.   Because I didn't have a volunteer "Demonstrator" at this particular class, I had resorted to my alternate practice of having members of the class act as Range Officer while I ran the demonstration stages.

The student RO didn't know what to do, so I just talked him through everything I was doing, and advised him to watch me closely to insure that I was always handling the 'malfunction' in a safe manner.  Essentially ... so that the gun was always pointed downrange; I didn't sweep myself while I was trying to clear the "Malf";   to insure that everybody else at the bay was keep safely uprange and out of the way;  and so that I had a witness to the events in case something went wrong.




The Gun:
At the time I couldn't drop the magazine,  and the slide was slightly out of battery.  I could NOT rack the slide, although it moved back in full-battery easily enough, when I pushed it..  There's now, and there was then, only about 1/8" play in the slide.  I did get the slide lock back in place, and I dropped the baseplate of the magazine to make sure the gun was definitely "unloaded" before I bagged it and left the bay.  Yes, I could thumb cock it, and dropped the hammer twice, so I was sure that there was no live round in the chamber;   later, I also dropped a squib rod down the barrel and it looks like it went all the way to the base plate, but the empty brass MAY be  still in the chamber;  I checked it again tonight, and I'm still not sure.   But I doubt it.


Lots of smoke, and lots of dirty gun-oil on my hands, but no injuries at all (just seemed like a lot more recoil than I'm accustomed to ... but that may be caused by my shock.)  Definitely, there was no "shrapnel" .. no "Thirty-Eight Super-Face".  I got one small drop of black oil on my nose, that's all.  I noticed that I kept asking everyone else if I had anything on my face ... I only expected more black oil specks, because I felt perfectly okay ... if a little shook up.

Later, I had no problems removing the magazine shell from the gun; I can't say why I was unable to do that on Saturday, but perhaps I banged the gun around enough while moving it around to loosen whatever condition had jammed it in place before.  I hadn't tried after I dumped the rounds, the spring and the follower from the magazine, so that might have been enough to relieve the tension on the magazine release.






Reloading Habits:
I have discarded the ammunition in the magazine; and am saving the rest of the ammunition from that batch; I don't intend to use it again, just to stay safe.   But I still have the damaged 'following round' from the magazine.

I really don't think it was a squib; I would have heard that.   At the time, I was shooting at a US Popper at 20+ yards, and each shot was a carefully aimed shot.  I wasn't feeling as if I was under pressure of time ... I was trying to get a good sight picture/sight alignment;  I was going to make up the first-shot miss.  And I don't think it was a double-charge, 'cause the loading press I'm using right now (an aging "Classic Lee Turret Press") doesn't have a powder measure I trust, so I'm using a "Bonanza" powder measure to include charging the rounds as a separate step of the process; I examine every round in the board after measuring powder in them, to insure that the powder level looks the same ... not underloaded, not overloaded... under a strong light as every other round; the case is about half-full  (4.5 grains of VV320 behind a 200-gr Montana Gold Truncated-round bullet -   I've been using that same load for the past 10,000 rounds plus!).

The Ammunition:
On the other hand,  I've sometimes been using moly-coated 200gr hardlead truncated lead bullets for the past 300+ rounds.  I haven't noticed any degradation in accuracy as a consequence, so it's hard to believe that I've got a barrel so leaded that it wouldn't pass a jacketed bullet.  I've written an email to "my gunsmith"  (Rob Shepherd of Shepherd Arms, to whom I intend to take the gun for examination and needed repairs) to keep an eye out for leaded lands, while he's looking at the barrel.

Frankly, I'm almost as interested in figuring out WHY, and HOW, as I am in getting the gun running again.

But the really scary thing is ... the next round out of the magazine was grossly distorted.

(1) The bullet was mashed in and discolored (by the vented gases?).

(2) The bullet was punched deeply into the case ... it looks like it was stopped by the powder in the case ... which it obviously compressed, because ..... 

(3) ... the pressure in that unfired case was so high that it forced the primer part-way out of the primer pocket! 

Remember, this round (the one on the right in these pictures) was still in the magazine after the Ka-BOOM.


Preliminary Conclusions:
I wish to emphasize, however, that although the ammunition blew up .. the gun held together!  Pending further evidence after a thorough examination of the gun, I would like to present these three preliminary conclusions:

(1)  The gun didn't vent shrapnel into the air, into the person of either the shooter (me) or the RO .. a student.  This is in direct contrast to the earlier experiences with "thirty-eight Shrapnel Face", "Glock Kaboom", and "Forty Short and Wicked" experiences.
(2) the reasons for this are that the gun and the case (10mm) are more robust than those which typified those comparative examples.  The gun was BUILT on the very sturdy frame designed and manufactured by STI.  The design of the gun included a fully supported barrel, and that "plastic hand-grip" had no problem containing the exhaust gasses.  Also, the 10mm cartridge case is MUCH more robust than the notoriously weak .40S&W; the case features much more support around the base web, which prevents the base of the cartridge case from either splitting or separating under extreme pressures .. the root cause (if you will forgive the pun) of much damage to shooters in other situations.
(3)  While I'm disappointed and distressed by the incident, I'm still a little smug.  When I bought the EDGE, I had previously talked to the President and CEO of STI (Dave Skinner) and told him that I was prepared to buy and EDGE when it was USPSA-Limited Division legal in the 10mm ... I would not buy it in its current .40S&W configuration.  Dave responded some months later to inform me that it was now legal in that 10mm configuration, and I was sufficiently confident in his word to buy the gun.  I think this experience proves that the 10mm, although the brass is nearly prohibitively expensive (at 17.3 Cents per round) is sufficiently SAFER than the .40S&W round to justify the pennys-per-round COST as opposed to the cost of paying physically for any errors I may have made in my reloading habits.

Local Sheriff Says Agency Will Ignore Gun Control Laws - YouTube

Local Sheriff Says Agency Will Ignore Gun Control Laws - YouTube: Local sheriff tells V.P. Biden: I will not enforce new gun bans




Linn County (Oregon) Sheriff Tim Mueller: you are the man of the hour!

HB3200 & the Fourth Amendment

[begin rant]

From Oregon's House Bill 3200 (Oregon's Proposed "Assault Weapon's Ban); Section 4, Paragraph 5:

(5) A registered owner of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine is required to:
(a) Securely store the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant torules and regulations adopted by the department;
(b) Allow an inspector from the department to inspect the storage of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with this subsection;
(c) Possess the assault weapon or large capacity magazine only:
(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;
(B) On the premises of a firearms dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful repair;
(C) While engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon or large capacity magazine at a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting; or
(D) While transporting the weapon in a vehicle as permitted in ORS 166.250; and

Two issues are immediately apparent here ... quite apart from the obvious Second Amendment:

1. Subsection (b) is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the constitution:
2. Subsection (c)(B) requires licensing of ANYONE who works on your firearm or your magazine outside of your home.

Let's look at the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The "inspector" would need a search warrant.   This bill would place your home, where you keep your personal firearms, in the same category as an industrial environment where explosives or caustic chemicals are stored.  WTF?  A 17-round pistol magazine is as dangerous as TNT?  

As for licensing gunsmiths ... why?   Why can't my friend, who knows more about guns than I do, perform repairs on my AR15?  Or my Garand, which (if I understand the definition of "assault weapon" would also be classified as an "Assault Weapon"?  Or fix my 17-round pistol magazine, for that matter?  This is analogous to requiring that my cousin be licensed before he can fix my car under the spreading chestnut tree in his back yard.  This, in the country which once lauded "The Village Smithy"?

We don't need no stinkin' license.  This is America, dammit.
_______________________________________________________________________

Okay, so much for constitutional issues and unreasonable governmental regulation of trade.

There's one more line that I want to bring up:   Section 4, paragraph 4:

(4) A person may not register more than one assault weapon and three large capacity magazines under this section. Additional assault weapons and large capacity magazines must be disposed of in the manner specified in section 3 of this 2013 Act.

Well.  Isn't that special?

I carry three (or four) magazines for my Limited gun, and the same for my Open gun.  Different calibers, they require different magazines.  So, even though my Limited gun would NOT be an "Assault Weapon" and my Open gun MAY not be, I still can't choose which division I want to compete in because I just plain can't own that many magazines.

Don't tell me I don't "need" them;  when I shoot my Beloved Kimber at a match, I have six or eight single-stack magazines on  my belt, because when you have limited magazine capacity you often have to reload every time you move, dropping a magazine which still has ammunition left in it.  Standing Reloads are not competitive, and they are embarrassing.  Worse, when you have a jam and drop a full or almost full magazine, you "need" to have more magazines that you might have expected.

I'm a Grumpy Old Man.  At my age, I don't need the irritation of a bunch of leotard nit-wits screwing with one of the few pleasures left to me:  I can't sing, my woman is gone, and I already drink more than is good for me.  Now they want me to hang up my guns?

This whole Registration/Confiscation/Class B Felony thing pisses me off.  Who do these yahoos think they are, telling me I can't play with guns?

What a bunch of maroons.

Excuse me, I need to go replace the duct-tape wrapped around my head.  And pour myself a drink, while I cool off.

[end rant]

OREGON: Worst Gun Laws in America?

Oregon House Bill 3200:  Summary

The  following  summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to  consideration  by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.

Creates  crime  of  unlawful  possession  or  transfer  of  assault  weapon  or  large  capacity  magazine.  Punishes  by  maximum  penalty  of  10  years’  imprisonment,  $250,000  fine,  or  both.
Requires  current  owners  to  dispose  of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Directs  Department  of  State  Police  to  conduct  background  checks  and  maintain  registry  of  assault  weapons  and  large  capacity  magazines.
Declares  emergency,  effective  on  passage.

This bill was introduced on my birthday to the Oregon State House of Representatives.

Michael Malkin has some unkind words to say about it.

Essentially, this bill includes:

• Registration
•  owners of "high-capacity" magazines and/or "Assault Weapons) must dispose of them either by selling (to a dealer who also must not possess this "bad stuff")
• .or or turning them over to a governmental agency (without compensation)
• or 'rendering (them) inoperable
• or "registering" it/them.

And of course, after registration comes confiscation.

DEFINITIONS:

Assault Weapon: whatever we say it is
Hi Capacity Magazine: whatever we say it is (so far: 10 rounds)

 Actually, the provisions of this bill are nothing new at all at all at all.  See "1994 Assault Weapons Ban".  (NOTE: A Wikipedia link.  As much as I am loath to accept Wikipedia as an authoritative resource, I'm inclined to cite them if only because their articles are subject to review by contributors with 'opinions' which may not directly agree with those of the original authors.)

Here's the Washington Post's take on the effectiveness of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban .. essentially, they think it was A Good Idea, but ten years was just not sufficient time to properly evaluate the laudable effects of the law.

Factcheck (an Annenberg project) strongly implies that the 1994 ban on assault weapons showed a lowered risk by "assault weapons" but it was offset by crimes involving "hi-capacity magazines".

Obviously, Oregon Liberal Representatives have decided to correct the errors of preceding administrations by banning both.

The National Institute of Justice, in a research brief, disingenuously observed that:

A number of factors—including the fact
that the banned weapons and magazines
were rarely used to commit murders in
this country, the limited availability of
data on the weapons, other components of
the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State
and local initiatives implemented at the
same time—posed challenges in discerning
the effects of the ban. The ban appears
to have had clear short-term effects
on the gun market, some of which were
unintended consequences: production of
the banned weapons increased before the
law took effect, and prices fell afterward.
This suggests that the weapons became
more available generally, but they must
have become less accessible to criminals
because there was at least a short-term
decrease in in criminal use of the banned
weapons.

[emphasis added] Note that the comment "prices fell afterward" doesn't mean that prices fell after the ban took effect; it refers to the fact that prices fell after the "SUNSET CLAUSE" in the original bill took effect in 2004!  As for the comment that "...they must have become less accessible to criminals..."; that strikes me as especially facetious, in that criminals have always had access to banned items.  That IS their Job Description!

Authors and co-signatories of the bill are: (Representative GREENLICK; Representatives BAILEY, BUCKLEY, DEMBROW, FREDERICK, READ, REARDON, TOMEI, Senators BURDICK, DINGFELDER, HASS, MONNES ANDERSON, MONROE, SHIELDS, STEINER HAYWARD)

The State Representatives are all Democrats.  The State Senators are all Democrats.

I've written to MY state representative.  If you live in Oregon, I suggest you do the same.

Perhaps you'll manage to sound less outraged than I did.

UPDATE: February 25, 2013

I received a response from my state representative at 06:20 am this morning:

Thank you for your letter about HB 3200.  I am not one of the co-sponsors of the bill and I do not serve on a committee that considers gun related bills, so I have not had time to look at it carefully since it was introduced on Friday.  It is my understanding that gun bills are unlikely to receive hearings this session.  In the event the bill does come out of committee, I will remember your concerns as I evaluate the bill in its final format.

Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely,
Sara

Representative Sara Gelser
Chair, House Education Committee
House District 16 (Corvallis/Philomath)
(503) 986-1416
rep.saragelser@state.or.us

Nigerian Letter: HK Version

It happens every now and then, and I usually ignore it completely.  I get another version of "The Nigerian Letter" (the "419" scam) inviting me to give them sufficient information for them to find, and raid, my bank account.

Here's the full text of the letter, FYI:

Attention: Respondent,

I am currently attempting to acquaint myself with your family history  
in order to make you the heir suitable to inherit the estate of our
customer( now deceased) because you bear the same last name with our
late customer. I want you to partner with me and receive this fund in
your account.

During the course of our auditing, I discovered a floating fund
($11.5m) in an account opened in the bank in 1999 and since then
nobody has operated on this account that belongs to this our late
Customer who hailed From your country hereinafter referred to as our
customer who
worked as contractor with Chevron/Texaco an oil magnate in my country
and was killed as a result of an attack from Niger Delta Militants.

Hence, we are currently handling a high valued financial portfolio of  
our late customer who clearly shares your last name and it was
recommended that I contact you. In looking for a suitable heir
apparent to our late customer, I am specifically interested in the
following information:

1. Your full names (no initials pls.)
2. Your Contact address.
3. Your Telephone and Fax number.
4. Your Date of Birth:
5. Your Current Occupation.

Could you please send me the information I have requested, along with  
any other information about you or your family history that might be
relevant? I need to make an important decision fairly soon about the  
administration of his estate on intestacy, so please send me the
information at your first opportunity today. Contact us for more
detailed information about this case.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Mr. Chris David.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Essentially, this complete stranger expects me to provide sufficient information that he can at least made a 'good effort' to discover my Social Security Number.  That, with my full legal name and current address,  along with my DOB, might be sufficient to access my SSN account along with any other 'fiduciary' accounts I have.

I know you can't easily read the screen-shot of the original email, so here's the information about the sender:

SENT BY:  "Audit / Account Department"
REPLY TO:hrisdavide110@yahoo.com.hk

The first thing to notice (and a give-away that it's bogus, if you didn't already notice) is that the reply email address isn't the same as the "from" email address.

Sigh.

Also, email does not directly cite either my name or my email address ... another sign that it's a 'mass email'.  Most of the information requested does not seem necessary.  The email address to which the prospectus was sent does not include my family name, and never has, so the author couldn't know MY last name.  How would he have matched me to the supposed deceased relative?

It's all just bogus, free-lance larceny, and we all benefit from any pressure we can apply to these predatory bastards.

HOW TO COMBAT INTERNET FRAUD:

I know I've talked about this before, here.  In accordance with my "Bad Example" life experiences, I  once again present  this warning that if you EVER get an email like this, do what I did: forward it to the FBI.   Their "Common Fraud Schemes" website will help you to find the best way to do that.  Look under the sub-heading:

Tips for Avoiding Nigerian Letter or “419” Fraud:

 Just find the link to "... contact your nearest FBI office   ... " and get the email address.

Don't delay, do it today!

If nothing else, you may get an email from the FBI, and won't THAT be exciting!


NOTE:  If you're one of those people whose priority is to "fly low", you may choose not to report the email.  On the other hand, if you are really "maintaining a low internet profile", you probably won't receive one of these emails, anyway.

AAARGH! My CHL License has Expired!

Yesterday was my birthday.

A couple of nights before, it occurred to me to look at all the cards in my wallet to see if I need to renew any of them:  driver's license, credit cards, library card, Costco card,  and ... Concealed Handgun License (CHL).

Oh dear!  My CHL expired in November of last year!

This only goes to show how much importance I put on it.   I monitor my credit cards and their associated accounts constantly, but when is the last time I looked closely at my CHL?

A little background is required:  I originally applied for it because I frequently carry firearms in my car.  Without a CHL, I'm not sure what my legal obligations are.  If I casually toss my range-bag in the back seat of the car, it's conceivably within reach.  And there's always ammo in the bag, if not loaded in either the magazines or the gun itself.  Am I violating a law?  I don't know, from one year to the next.

So I applied for, and eventually received, a CHL.  No more worries.  Even a gun in my car fall (under certain circumstances) as a "Concealed Handgun", I'm covered.  I actually  renewed the five-year license before it expired last time, but I fear I have become complacent since then.

Now that my CHL has expired I find that renewal falls within an entirely new set of regulations.  Here are the five-step list of regulations which I must satisfy before I can renew my license:

1. Fee: $50.  (exact change, or a check for the exact amount)
2. APPLICATION FORM. Must be completely filled out, legible and signed. IMPORTANT NOTE: If your license has been expired for less than 2 years, you will also need to have two character
   references complete and sign the “Handgun License Required References” form. If your license
   has been expired for more than 2 years, you cannot renew, but will need to re-apply for an original
   license.
3. NEW REQUIREMENT EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2011: PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. Birth certificate, passport or appropriate INS forms.
4. PICTURE. A picture of you will be taken when you turn in your completed application.

I don't have any major problem with the fee, or the picture.  In fact, I don't have a major problem with the proof of citizenship .. except that I had to provide that to receive the original license, so why do I have to duplicate the effort. Actually, in my state, I had to provide a birth certificate before I could get my driver's license renewed .. wow!   This in a state where the Matricula Consular document is accepted in lieu of a 'natural citizen' birth certificate for most business ... including a drivers license!  Okay, it's an illogical pain in the ass, but I can do that.  (I can't tell you how long ago I originally received my drivers license, but I assure you that my citizenship hasn't changed.) 

(On the other hand, I do agree that the criteria for a concealed handgun license should be different from/more stringent than that of getting a drivers license because a drivers license is a right, and toting a gun is only supported by the constitu ..... oh.  Never mind.   Maybe it's because more people are killed and maimed every year by cars than by ... uh ......)

The only real problem I have is with the need to have Character References.  I hate to go around begging for friends to sign a form saying that I'm sane enough to carry a handgun.  It's demeaning!  If I recall correctly, the original license application was supported by my landlord and the President of the local gun club.  They didn't need to provide any documentation about THEIR citizenship, thank goodness!)

I really should have addressed this months ago, but I didn't, and I accept my own responsibility for being too complacent.  In the mean time, I can't apply for my renewal until next week,  so I have a few days to dig my Birth Certificate Registered Copy out of my files, and print the application forms and all.  (Small personal problem, my printer doesn't work;  I'll depend on my friends to help me out.)

What this, is ... once again, my life mission seems to be to serve as a bad example for the edification of friends and family.  If I had renewed 3 months ago, the process would have been much simpler.

My Bad.

Firearms Manufacturers Refuse to Sell Guns to Law Enforcement Agencies

Infidel Bloggers Alliance: Since New York State enacted its restrictive new gun laws, many manufacturers have sent that state (and others) a message: If local governments are going to severely restrict the ability of citizens to own guns, then these companies will not be selling to law enforcement in those areas.

I heard on the Marc Levin  show today that firearms manufacturers, in response to state and local infringements on citizens, are increasingly refusing to sell or service, or provide ammunition to, Law Enforcement departments in localities which curtail the rights of their CITIZENS to the same access to firearms and ammunition.

This is "not-quite-breaking-news"; apparently this is a trend which has being ongoing for several days,  and I only heard about it this afternoon.

It's also "not-quite-breaking-news" in that nearly seven years ago (april, 2005) we reported here that Ronnie Barrett had refused to service his .50 caliber rifles which he had previously sold to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) because of that city and county policies.

Has it taken THAT long for the rest of the the firearms manufacturers to wake up and smell the coffee?

I won't even attempt to provide all the links to bloggers and "Main Stream Media" which are reporting this news.  You can do the search using such keywords as "police" and "Firearms Manufacturers" and "Refuse".  And I encourage you to do so.  I only cite The Infidel because he has a nice list of manufacturers who have jumped on the bandwagon (belatedly) ... and by this time, the list is outdated already.

Anti-gun people have been after Firearms Manufacturers for YEARS to force them (unfairly) to take responsibility for misuse by end-users of firearms which have been retailed by dealers under Federal restrictions.   And the gun makers have been quiet ... complacent, except in the courts .. in response.

It's about time that these manufacturers, wholesalers and even retailers (such as "Cheaper Than Dirt") took a stand.

I applaud them for their new-found assertiveness.  Too long have they played the meek mouse under continuing attacks.  I think they should have followed the lead of Barrett Arms years ago, but I won't criticize them because "Hey, it's a business, and you don't offend your customers!"

At last, their customers have offended THEM by the use of double-standards which have affected ... The Business.

Every year, the government has infringed upon the market by threats of federal 'standards' which are both unconstitutional and anti-business.  The gun and ammo makers tried to keep it going in the lean years, and when an anti-gun president is elected (or re-elected), the business fail to keep up with demands of new customers.  This negatively impacts their ability to serve the needs of their 'regular' customers, as we have seen for the past five years.  And this is the same situation which other businesses in America have experienced;  they don't have a legitimate 5-year plan, because they don't know which way the President will jump from one year to the next.

Hell, from one month to the next!

I think that ALL businesses in America might take heart by this example.   There needs to be an uprising against uncontrolled Federal infringement on business (and, to a lesser degree, at the state level) because of wildcat variances of governmental regulations.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of paying $50 for a brick (1,000) of primers .. which sold for $85 for a five-brick "Sleeve" (5,000) of primers ten years ago at bulk rates.  And you can't even find them in stores at any price!  It was two years after Obama's first election before my local Bi-mart would sell me more than 200 primers at a single purchase; their supply simply could not accommodate the demand.

Is this grounds for impeachment?

Probably not.

But it ought to be.

America's Funniest IPSC Videos

"Americans love a winner, and they will not abide a loser"

So said George S. Patton, at least as he was portrayed in the 1970 movie "Patton".

IPSC competition is a little different.
We don't typify a "loser" as everyone else who doesn't win his/her match, division or class.   "Winning is nice" .... but we don't care that much when our friends are concerned.

What we love is someone who runs through a stage and exceeds all expectations.  They may win First Place, Second Place, or actually win nothing at all. But when a shooter has an exceedingly good run, those of us who know them and how they usually shoot are joyous if only because they have done 'better that usual:.

Here are three videos from several (okay, 6) years ago which are among my favorites.

First is my favorite lady shooter; SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) Smith.  The title of the video (Witchy Woman) says it all:

*Yes, I have posted this video here before ...and I probably will again.  I trashed this stage, but She .. with a borrowed gun, did just fine.  Besides, I loved to watch her shoot.*

Nest is a Junior shooter "Stephan" addressing the challenge of a "Surprise Stage" in the jungles of Dundee.  He didn't win anything ... came in rather low in the "Croc Match" (a high-round-count match) in fact.  But he rocked his world on this stage, and my friends who were the husband-and-wife team who set up and officiated at this stage counted it among their own personal favorites:


Finally, the man who actually won a very difficult stage in the same Croc Match, Yon Lee showed us how well he could perform by literally dancing through an up-and-back stage.


I'm hoping that someone will watch these videos, and will be encouraged to try IPSC/USPSA competition themselves.  It's a great way to meet new friends who like  to shoot pistols as much as you do.  And, as a bonus .. there will come a time when you do one stage exactly right.  With a little bit of luck, someone will be there with a camera to record  your triumph.

Or .. you may never win a stage in your entire life.

But you will have a helluva lot of fun!

Obama's Gun Control Proposals .. pro and con

On January 16, 2013, President Obama went on national television and presented his 23-point "Executive Order" proposal to "stop the gun violence":

You can see the video here ( a 16 minute speech):

(  The context of the speech is available in text from the Washington Post,  here.   NOTE that the context of this "QUOTE" is not the same as the context you will see in this video.   It starts earlier in the speech.)

A side note, though: I find it shameful that disagree strongly with the the President who (at about 7"40' into the speech) typifies those who disagree with his solutions as being motivated by personal gratification:

" This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty, not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever. ."

[emphasis added]
 
This isn't mudslinging against a political opponent, but a base canard pointed directly toward those who believe that their vision of the Second Amendment of the Constitution legitimately differs from that of the President.

Well, he's a politician.  Remember the old saying from when you were a child?

"I'm rubber, you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me, and sticks to you!"

Not anyone agrees that these talking points provide the "Perfect Solution".

Some say, that the goals cannot be accomplished without universal gun registration; and that registrations equates to confiscation.  (See also here; a 2-minute rebutal.) 



On February 12, 2013, President Obama delivered his annual State of the Union Address, in which he discussed (in part) the issue of Gun Control:

He did not address his specific proposals, but only spoke parenthetically about "Gun Violence":

Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, and uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

I applaud President Obama's tacit admission that enacting random confiscatory laws against firearms possession will not resolve the problems with violence in America.  I hope that all Americans will look closely at  the various "Gun Control" proposals which are being presented to Congress and to the people of the United states.  These proposals are less than a band-aid; they will not change the pattern of violence; they would only exacerbate the problems by penalizing peaceful, honest citizens while doing NOTHING to curb violence, hatred, evil intent and public slaughter of innocents.

For perhaps the first time I agree completely with Mr. Obama.  It's not about "Gun Violence", it's about "Violence".  It's not about "Gun Control"; in fact, it's not about guns at all.

I don't know who he has been listening to, but I only wish he had started listening years ago.  It would not necessarily have made our nation more "peaceful", but it would have allowed us to protect each other more effectively.

NOTE:  Some people wonder if congress has any right at all to regulate firearms ownership in America.  See the Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2013.