second amendment

( I wrote an email to a friend on the East Coast recently, stipulating why I thought that Maryland Gun Control Laws ... which my friend found so onerous ... was anethema to my mind.  After I finished,  I realized that this was a good "First Draft" of a explanation of my own support of the Second Amendment.  This is that draft, with the personal information removed.  Yes, it's still a rough-cut, and I probably won't provide a finished draft.  Perhaps it's something that you can kick around and "make it better".  Please ignore the crude transitions as I tried to make clear, it's all just a stream-of-consciousness letter to a friend; it's not intended to be an UberPost. )

REGISTRATION
Registration is the first step, the second step is confiscation.  California proved that decades ago.  Citations are available, but we don't care to go into the details.

Also, Registration means that the state knows "who has what".  None of their business.  The Federal NCIC (National Criminal Identification Center) ensures that "bad guys" can't buy guns; if you buy one, and pass the NCIC test ... that proves you're not a bad guy.  The Feds are prohibited from keeping the details of any firearms transaction, or using that data for ANY purpose other than identifying criminals who try to buy a gun, and prosecuting them.  "Good Guys" data is deleted in a matter of days.

So, NCIC is designed to support current federal law, which says that felons can't own guns.  That's the sole purpose.

It is NOT intended to be the first step toward registration. 

States Rights notwithstanding, states can NOT violate constitutional law.  See the Second Amendment.  (For that matter, see the First Amendment, and everything else .. including the little-known Third Amendment, which prevents both states and feds from quartering soldiers in your home;  one of the primary issues which lead to the American Revolution.)

"THE RIGHT ... TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  That means that the feds (and therefore, the states) can't xxxx (mess) with it.  At all.  States and municipalities have recently been slapped down for attempting to INFRINGE this right; see "Heller", for a start.

Recently, there have been challenges to the degree in which that amendment is applicable to the states.  Supreme Court decisions have supported the constitutional right of all non-felonious citizens to own firearms .. at least in their homes.  The current Left-Wing mantra is "what do you need a (military styled firearm) for, anyway?"  The answer to that is embedded in the Miller Decision (193???), in which a judge decided (in an uncontested case .. the  chargee was a bootlegger who had a shotgun) that the right of a citizen to own as short-barreled shotgun was not protected because it was not a "military arm".  Actually, if the guy charged would have shown up for his trial .. he would have easily proven that the U.S. Army used short-barreled shotguns (then called "Trench Guns") during WWI.  The odd thing is, that according to MILLER .. only military type firearms are DEFINITIVELY protected by the Constitution.  So ... at least  one state court has defended the right to keep Military arms, which sets a precedent.

(All of this stuff is being written "off the cuff", so I'm not providing links to the specific court cases.  You can look them up, for your own edification.  Since this is only a once-over-lightly "overview", I hope you will be comfortable with accepting that what I say is based on research; perhaps it may even be more effective if you do the research yourself, so you don't think I'm just smoking you here.)

SECOND AMENDMENT:
Look at the test of the "badly worded" amendment:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_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.

That curious comma has been the subject of a lot of discussion.  Bear in mind that the Colonists in 18th-century America had experienced a lot of problems with the "standing army"imposed upon them by the British.  (Remember the reference to the 3rd Amendment, earlier?  Those folks did NOT like British Troops!)  So, the point of a "well regulated militia" is not a casual, throw-away line as some people interpret it to be today. Instead, the founders and the authors of the Constitution were saying:

"We don't like an army telling us what we should and shouldn't do, so we're going to have our OWN guns .. and if those Limey Bastards get in our face again, we'll blow them all to HELL!"
(But they said it as nicely as they could ... and made damn sure it got into their constitution!)

Remember the shot heard 'round the world?  Remember Concord?  Those Limey Bastards had confiscated our rifles, and locked them up in their armory.  We took 'em back!  And when they came to get our rifles from us again .. we blew them all to HELL!

__________________________


So, what's the point of all this?  Not that we're wanting to get into another Revolutionary War, for damned sure!

We just want to avoid the entire unpleasant experience. 

Say, rather:  "You run the government, and we'll keep our guns.  We'll accept a few silly little laws, but don't touch our guns because ... well, remember Concord?"

And THAT is why the Second Amendment is so important.  It's not about hunting.  It's not about personal defense.  Even though those are part of it .........
... it's about Government Gone Wild.


So, I don't like registration; makes it easier to confiscate, and then we have to fight to get our guns back.

Ignorance of the law ..

"Alfred Anaya was a genius at installing secret compartments in cars. If they were used to smuggle drugs without his knowledge, he figured that wasn’t his problem. He was wrong."

 Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. So the DEA Put Him in Prison | Threat Level | Wired.com:

Alfred Anaya took pride in his generous service guarantee. Though his stereo installation business, Valley Custom Audio Fanatics, was just a one-man operation based out of his San Fernando, California, home, he offered all of his clients a lifetime warranty: If there was ever any problem with his handiwork, he would fix it for the cost of parts alone—no questions asked


. Anaya’s customers typically took advantage of this deal when their fiendishly loud subwoofers blew out or their fiberglass speaker boxes developed hairline cracks. But in late January 2009, a man whom Anaya knew only as Esteban called for help with a more exotic product: a hidden compartment that Anaya had installed in his Ford F-150 pickup truck. Over the years, these secret stash spots—or traps, as they’re known in automotive slang—have become a popular luxury item among the wealthy and shady alike. This particular compartment was located behind the truck’s backseat, which Anaya had rigged with a set of hydraulic cylinders linked to the vehicle’s electrical system. The only way to make the seat slide forward and reveal its secret was by pressing and holding four switches simultaneously: two for the power door locks and two for the windows.

I know what you're thinking.  I thought it, too.  When can you know when to know what you know ... and when to not know what you know that you know.

If you understood that last sentence then you may be a geek.   This obsession to 'hide things' is the secret obsession of The Geek (not this one, but in the "generic sense").  Whether it's trap doors, or back-doors to computer programs ....Geeks Do This.

And if you think that you can your moral sense isn't a good guide in how you run your business ... and your life ... then you may be a felon, too.

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE

A common hacker refrain is that technology is always morally neutral. The culture’s libertarian ethos holds that creators shouldn’t be faulted if someone uses their gadget or hunk of code to cause harm; the people who build things are under no obligation to meddle in the affairs of the adults who consume their wares.
But Alfred Anaya’s case makes clear that the government rejects that permissive worldview. The technically savvy are on notice that they must be very careful about whom they deal with, since calculated ignorance of illegal activity is not an acceptable excuse. But at what point does a failure to be nosy edge into criminal conduct? In light of what happened to Anaya, that question is nearly impossible to answer.

Read the whole thing.  It's worth a couple of minutes.  And the visuals are worth the effort.

Newt Gingrich vs. Piers Morgan on Gun Control Debate - 1-24-13 - YouTube

Newt Gingrich vs. Piers Morgan on Gun Control Debate - 1-24-13 - YouTube: Newt Gingrich vs. Piers Morgan on Gun Control Debate - 1-24-13

Cold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey ... WHO CARES?

Cold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey from Jim Carrey, NickCorirossi, Charles Ingram, Funny Or Die, BoTown Sound, millsfx, and Melissa Gould McNeely

Conservative Bloggers and Pundits are getting pretty darned worked up by the latest Jim Carrey video, which  satarizes  Charlton Heston.   I'm not sure why.

I know why Carrey said all this stuff, and why he "attacked" Charlton Heston (my personal hero) .. it's his job.  He's not always very good at it (witness: "Ace Ventura" and "The Cable Guy"), but that's the job he has chosen.

If Charlton Heston can can ignore the egregious Michael Moore, he can ignore Jim Carrey .. who (wisely, I think) waited until Heston was dead before he satirized him.

Still, even if Carrey pokes fun at our Second Amendment rights, we should allow him his First Amendment rights.  Oh, we can make fun of him in turn, but ... what's the problem?

I know, I know ... "your rights end when your fist meets my nose".   To mix a metaphor, my nose is only a bit "out of joint".  I don't LIKE what he has to say, and I may condemn it .. but that's what the First Amendment is all about: the right to "unpopular speech".  After all, the Second Amendment was included to support the First Amendment .. and all the other Constitutional Amendments which may from time to time give us pause.

"I  may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!"

 (Voltaire)


We can still learn, even from the Odious French.

So .. Conservative Bloggers and Pundits ... give it a rest, eh?.

"I'm Denny Crane"

Catch 22

or

You will NOT be assimilated until we figure out what we're talking about!

Cuomo’s 7-Bullet Limit Suspended Indefinitely in NY Gun Law Debacle:

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s seven-round limit on magazines sold in New York will be suspended “indefinitely” by a measure in his $136.5 billion budget set to be passed this week, Dean Skelos, a Senate majority leader said. The ban on magazines holding more than seven bullets was set to start April 15. Cuomo has said the law needs to be rolled back because manufacturers don’t make seven-round holders. The measure was a center piece to a gun law the 55-year-old Democratic governor pushed through the legislature in January, making New York the first state to respond with tougher gun regulations to the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre.

(We might ALSO have titled this is:  "It depends on what the meaning of 'IS', is!")

We couldn't make this up.  It took a while, but Mayor Bloomber's sock-monky A. Cuomo has finally realized that he has reached his (Star Treck reference, forgive me) "Norman, Please Coordinate" moment!

Andy Capped the 'permissible' firearms magazine capacity at seven (7) rounds, but later learned ... who knew? ... that nobody makes 7-round magazines any more.

This would effectively make ALL(most) magazine-fed weapons (and all magazines) illegal in the state of New York.

Not that  Cuomo and Bloomberg wouldn't be delighted by that providential outcome, but even these Useful Idiots were advised that this was tantamount to a violation of the Second Amendment.  You know ... the troublesome one?

(Note: I was unable to find a current link to the"Troublesome Second Amendment", which is regretable .. so I here offer an decidedly different link to the "PESKY" Second Amendment.  Not the same thing at all.  I will continue my search to the liberal profesor who changed his mind when he actually READ the constitution.  end note.)

It's hard to tell where the limit of acceptable outrageousness lies, when we're talking about career politicians (is there any other kind?), but apparently there are occasional competent staffers even in the Governator's Office who take seriously their job to keep their boss from looking as ignorant as they really are.  Unfortunately, sometimes they aren't consulted until said idiocy evinces itself in public statements.  Well, if Cuomo hadn't sacrificed his testicular masculinity to the god of party politics, perhaps he wouldn't have found himself in this embarassing juncture (which politicians say instead of "I'm An Idiot"!).

Not that we're reluctant to point out his lapses in logic.  As publically as possible, please.

Thank you.

THE POINT?

Actually, this sounds like the dream you have from time to time, where you find yourself in a public place and discover that you have no pants on.   ( I think that "Boston Legal" started their first season with exactly that scenario .. and the Corporate Partner in question didn't consider it embarassing at all.  So perhaps Cuomo might be considerd to be more self-aware than Larry Miller's"Edwin Poole" Character.)

Or .. Denny Crane.



Cuomo must have had an agenda in mind, but one doubts whether it was to look like an idiot in the press.  He must have a firm muzzle on the MSM, though, if this is the worst that can be said about him.

So  (ho-hum) Andy got it wrong, he didn't make an effort to determine the economic ... nay, the physical impossibility of what he was asking from his constituents, and it bit him in the ass.

This illustrates the contretemps which often arise when Idiots, or Democrats (but then, I repeat myself) attempt to enter legislation which restrict civil rights about which they know absolutely NOTHING.  One is naturally inclined to blame this on substandard staffing .. but actually, the problem is not with the staffing (after all, they let him know that he was being an IDIOT).

The problem is with the political election process.  We tend to elect people who tell us what we want to hear, not people who know what they are talking about.

Have, the people who comprise the electorate of New York State have been revealed to be insufficiently astute to keep an idiot out of office?  Well, we as a nation elected Obama, so I guess we can only point the finger at our two political parties ... neither one of which can field a rational (let alone responsible) candidate.

eg: Obama vs Romney.  The country voted for the devil they knew, if only because Romney was an incompetent politician and a poor candidate.

Maybe next time one of the two dominant political parties will find someone who is not so easily confused.  I don't expect it .. but I do have high hopes.

I leave you with these few words:  William Shatner For President!
(At least we would have someone who we knew something about before we voted for him .. however reluctantly!)

NJ to probe state response in boy-with-gun photo

NJ to probe state response in boy-with-gun photo | General Headlines | Comcast:

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie has asked his attorney general to investigate the state's visit to the home of a man who had posted online a photo of his son holding a military-style rifle, saying news reports raised "troubling questions" about how the case was handled. The state's child welfare agency and local police went to the Carneys Point home of Shawn Moore on March 14, following what police say were anonymous calls expressing concern about the safety of a child. Moore has said he believes he was investigated solely because of the photo he shared online of his son, Josh, holding the gun he got for his 11th birthday. The weapon was a .22-caliber rifle made to look like an assault weapon. He says caseworkers were aggressive and the visit unwarranted. No charges were filed.

This is actually a follow-up on a report from Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority.  Baker titled his March 20, 2013 piece "When Dealing With Guns, The Citizen Acts At His Peril", because it is in direct contrast to a 2003 New Jersey situation where a NJ citizen was imprisoned for simple posession of a .22 caliber rifle, which was apparently discovered in similar circumstances. (Details on the 1996 Joseph Pelleteri case are linked in the above article.)

Quick summary:  Moore posted his kids picture on a social website.  "Anonymous calls" (how many?) to the welfare department caused welfare busybodys to grab a cop or two when they called on the Moore home.  The cops wanted to see his guns.  Moore said no.  Cops wanted to see how his guns were stored.  Moore said no.  The cops asked if they could come in.  When he learned that they didn't have a search warrant, Moore said no.  Thank you sir, have a nice day ... and the cops never came back.

You can see from the photo which started the whole magillicutty that the cherubic-faced boy isn't doing anything wrong.  Well, but he's wearing a camo-patterened coat, and the gun is black, and it's got this EVIL big magazine.  No wonder all of those Nervous Nellys called the guvmint to report what must have seemed a terrorist in training!

LOOKISM?

Look, it's a kid.  And the gun is a .22.  And it's legal.  And it doesn't "Spray 'N Prey" (sic).

It's just a kid with a plinker.   I've been shooting plinkers like that (only in brown, not black; and with a 10-round tube magazine instead of a how-many-I-don't-know inserted magazine) since I was a lot younger than this youngster.

Oh, wait!  Back up to the Pelleieri case ... his .22 rifle was brown, not black; and it had a tubular magazine, too.   I guess when people think that "All Guns Are Evil" and "Guns Are Only Good For Killing People", then the details, merely add more fuel to the book-burning fires.

Yeah; Baker has a link to THAT quandry, too, in his Pelleteri piece.  The gun looks nothing like the one that Moore bought his son, but consider this:

When you are The Guvmint, the term "Assault Rifle" means whatever you say it means, regardless of the commonly held military definition, which includes:

• Military weapon (whatever that means)
• Intermediate or rifle-caliber
• stocked
• External (removable) magazine
• Selective fire (both semi-automatic and fully automatic)
• capable of having a bayonette attached

New Jersey, though, has a much simpler definition:

• semi-automatic
• capable of holding 10 rounds

(Well, that's "Assault Weapon", not "Assault Rifle";  they don't care if it's a stocked rifle, because the term "ASSAULT" doesn't mean what they taught me in the Army.)

________________________________________________________

BUY IT YESTERDAY, BAN IT TODAY,  GET 10 YEARS TOMORROW

This discussion wouldn't be complete without at least one reference from the Main Stream Media.

Perhaps Scott Bach, columnist (blogger) for the New Jersey Times (NJ.com) would not be considered "MSM" by everybody, but for the purposes of this discussion ....  hey, he's published

In his March 09, 2008 (!) article, Bach includes the following:

If you buy a lawful product that is later banned, should you go to jail for 10 years, even though you didn't know it was banned, and the government that banned it now criminalizes any method to dispose of it?
In the world of gun ban extremist Bryan Miller of CeaseFire NJ, [link added for convenience ... geek] the answer to this question is yes.
Miller sees no distinction between violent criminals with guns (who should go to jail) and otherwise law-abiding citizens who were turned into "criminals" by the State with the stroke of a pen, when New Jersey banned an entire class of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms in the 1990s with no grandfather provision, no attempt to notify licensed gun owners, and a short time window within which to legally dispose of, disable, or register the banned guns.
At a March 6 legislative hearing on S1304, which would increase the penalty for possession of such firearms to a potential 10-year prison term, I argued that the higher penalty should apply to violent criminals with guns, but that otherwise law abiding citizens who had purchased the guns when it was legal to do so, who may not know they are banned due to the law's judicially acknowledged vagueness, who are not involved in criminal activity, and who presently have no legal means to comply with the law, should not be facing 10 years in prison.
In my testimony, I quoted a Court's judicial opinion finding that the gun ban's vague and confusing language made it impossible to know with certainty whether some firearms are covered by the ban. I cited another case in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term under the current penalty merely for possessing a common .22 caliber target gun he had legally purchased prior to the ban.

Sound familiar?

[NOTE: Both the "my testimony" and "another case" links are unavailable: the first is 'broken', the second is 'protected' (requires login).]  My guess is he is referring to the Peleteri case.

Miller's link, however, is still active as of this date.  I encourage you to read it, if only to understand the mindset behind it.  Miller believes the law .. which makes felons of people who owned statuatorily 'banned' guns for simple possession ... to be fully justified in all its ramifications.

What that means is, this comes down to a conflict between the U.S. Constitution (2nd Amendment) and "States Rights".

Constitution:  "... Shall not be infringed ..."
Heller Decision: "... the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
New Jersey: ""[a] semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [fifteen] rounds."

Ultimately, CONGRESS did not make this law.  New Jersey did.  And while Heller applied to whether or not an individual could legally keep a handgun in the home, it did NOT address the question of what specific types of firearms could be restricted from ANY ownership.

My advise, if you live in New Jersey ... move.  Now!   That law is constitutional until the Supreme Court decides it is not.

ON THE OTHER HAND ....
... now that Obama has finally and definitively identified himself as a Hoplophobe, and is STRONGLY  threatening to impose draconian "Gun Control" laws on a national level, my best advise at this time is:

"Don't sell your Confederate Money, Boys!"

I'm an Idiot!!

It probably comes as no surprise to most of us, to hear that I'm an Idiot.  but perhaps the fact that I acknowledge my idiocy is a new twist.

The fact is, I managed to not only break my gun, but in the same month I broke my computer.


Now I am faced with a new, and very special computer.  One in which not only is the keyboard "different" (I can see the letters on the keys .. I have been touch-typing for years now and the letters confuse me!), but also a computer whose entire operating system sucksl

Windows 8!
Explorer 10!

Somewhere out there is a person who wishes me only the WORST in life.  If so .. rest easy, my not-so-friend;  


I am in Hell!

AS a recent emigrate' from XP, not only do I not know how to explore EXPLORER, but I don't even know how to fire up FIREFOX!

The only way I know how to even start either browser is from a shoot-and-spray technique I learned from observing new shooters in my INTRO class: ...

"just .. point it down range and pull the trigger.  You're sure to hit something, even if it's only the berm!".

Well, it works for me, even though it's not very efficient so far.

Email will be curtailed for a while.  Comments to The Blog?  Who kjows?  I can't even read them tonight.

When my computer died, I knew it was going to get ugly.  I just had no idea how 'ugly" that "UGLY' might be!

"Gun Control" by Governmental Fiat?

A few days ago, while I was researching an essay on Gun Control (what else?), I ran across an article from some Progressive guy who claimed to be an ex-NYC policeman.   I was surprised by the content, because I always figured that the police were fairly well-grounded in the real definition of "common sense measures".  But since the article was almost four years old, I didn't give it more than a casual reference.

But it popped up on my screen today because I had saved the link, and I actually read it in detail even though I had found it on SLATE dot com:

I thought  would present a few of the opinions ... presented as either facts, or assumptions that "everybody knows" ... if only to demonstrated how ignorant some of these rabid Moon Bats can be:

How Obama can use government procurement regulations to control guns. - Slate Magazine (2009):

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides. This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?

 [NB:  All quotes included emphasis not included in the original article.]
I didn't think I had read that right, or perhaps the guy was toking while he was writing and had merely mis-spoken.  But when I reread the article, I saw that he said it again:

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system.

And then, to confirm his inability to get a clue, he presented his own modest proposal to influence free trade without directly challenging the Second Amendment:

 Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold were later used by criminals

One might get the impression from this article that (a) firearms manufacturers sell directly to criminals on a retail basis, and/or (b) the firearms manufacturers, unlike "nongun manufacturers across the nation", are completely unregulated and can sell directly to private citizens.  And also, that "authorized dealers" are not accountable for checking that their customers are not criminals.  Perhaps they think that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives don't audit licensed dealers?



Apparently, this experienced ex-cop has never, during his years on the Mean Streets, heard of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) .  According to the FBI, which has been running these background checks since 1998:

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

Here's the thing:   Suppose you were a Progressive, and suppose you were an Idiot.  (But then, I repeat myself.) This contributor to Slate has presented his credentials ... more or less ... as a knowledgeable authority on the subject.  If anybody knows anything about guns, it should be a cop in a major city.  Especially where they're about the only people authorized to carry a gun.

So any of those "Useful Idiots" (or "utter simpletons") who are so gullible as to take his comments at face value may be instantly convinced of the validity of his assertations.  After all, they read it in "Slate", so it must be true!

This is a perfect example of the way the Ignoramousity of America have been duped by their "trusted sou
ed on an unwarranted assumption  Or a misunderstanding of the FEDERAL laws regarding firearms purchases.

One can't help but wonder if this was a deliberate piece of "misdirection: on the part of the author.  Surely he should have  been aware that Congress passed the Shield Law in October of 2005 ... 3-1/2 years before this article was poison-penned.  The announcement was published in the New York Times, the most trusted publication in all Christendom!


Well,  perhaps the N.Y. Times is not as trusted as Slate.

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.