Monday, February 17, 2014

Night Ambush: Part I



(Read Part 2 here)



PART 1:  The Road
They called the highway Thunder Road.   On the maps, it was called "Highway 13".   In truth, it was a rude gash through the outback of Viet Nam, meandering north from Saigon to the Song Be river.    The men of  Lima Platoon, Charley Company, 1/16 1st Infantry Division (“THE BIG RED ONE”) didn’t know where it went from there, because they never crossed the river.  That part of the country was outside of their Area of Operations, and they didn’t care about it.

In fact, they didn’t much care about the road, one way or the other.  The only thing they cared about was getting fed, staying dry, and not getting shot or blown up.  

Vietnam in January of 1970 was existential for American Infantrymen;  as long as they still consciously existed, they were okay.  They didn’t do anything that they didn’t absolutely HAVE to do (as far as their orders were concerned).  They walked, hid, ate what the army called “food” (which is to food as military music is to music), slept when they could and they were dressed in ‘uniforms’ which were rags that the REMFs (“Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers”) wouldn’t deign to steal from their duffel bags … which in turn were locked in not-very secure containers somewhere in the Division Base camp in Dian.

On the map, Thunder Road was a red line.  In fact, it was a shallow depression in the plains north of Saigon, which was epitomized by the two seasons (Monsoon, when it was mud, and “Not-monsoon”, when it was dust).   Sometimes the tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers of the 11th ACR or the Second of the Fourth Armored Battalion (“two-quarter horse”) would charge back and forth on their way to a mission.  Their mission was rarely to support the infantrymen of Lima .  “The Big Red One” was, as far as the infantrymen were concerned, both the Division and The Road.

Sometimes ... rarely ... the platoon was transported on those magnificent war machines.  They would huddle on the hull, sometimes holding onto the barrel of the Main Gun while they moved.  They liked it when they drove on The Road on the way back to our base, because it saved them hours of walking.  Of course, during the not-monsoon season the tracks kicked up a lot of dust.  When they got back to base, they would have to do an especially thorough cleaning, which usually involved a dip into a tub of solvent, such as gasoline.  But that took less time than walking ‘home’

They especially liked riding on armor in the bush, which was at waking pace and with very little dust. Except when they would go through The Woods, when the trip almost invariably led to brushing a tree and dumping a nest of stinging, biting ChiCom Ants in their shirts.

It is customary to refer to forested areas in Viet Nam as “Jungle”, but in truth “Three Zone” didn’t have much jungle.  What it had was something that looked like Alder thickets, and bamboo clumps, and Rubber Tree plantations.   So they just called it “The Bush”.

The Infantry man’s view of Viet Nam also included deadly snakes, deadly centipedes, deadly booby traps, deadly Viet Cong, deadly North Vietnamese Army (rarely, there), and sometimes deadly ARVNs.

ARVNS?  Army of the Republic of Viet Nam.  ARVNs were nominal allies, but in the actual event American troops learned to never turn our back on them.  When they were assigned to work with ARVNs, they set up in a circle; the ARVNs took one half of the circle, Americans took the other … and always had as many armed and alert troops watching the ARVNs (on the inside) as were watching for VC on the outside of the circular position.

Along Thunder road … at least in the immediate AO were three communities and a special “area of interest”.

THE VILLAGE:   The village was called ”Phuc Binh” and was home to perhaps 150 souls.   It was east of a straight portion of the road which had been graveled … recently, which was uncommon.  The villagers had an amiable relationship with American troupes.  They would sell us cokes and short time sex during the day, and entertain and feed the roving VC at night.   None never truly believed that they had killed any Americans themselves, but had no doubt that they were giving aid and information to the enemy who had killed Americans.

THE ARVN COMPOUND:  The Army of the Republic of Vietnam had a walled compound across The Road from the village, and a couple of miles further south.   There were approximately 50 ARVN soldiers there, but they usually had their wives and families living with them.  It was a “permanent duty station” in that respect, and the presence of their families presumably encouraged the soldiers to defend its walls enthusiastically.   It’s hard to work with the VC to overwhelm the compound when your family will die with the soldiers.

NOVEMBER2 Night Defensive Position:   The American position was ill-named as a “Night Defensive Position”.  It was actually a Fire Support Base, housing behind its bunker line and barbed wire and mine fields a battery of 105mm mobile guns.  Also, there were positions dug to provide berms for visiting armor units, both tanks and Armored Personnel carriers.    There were latrines with actual sit-downs and walls!  There were shower points; in this case privacy was not important.  It was just a water bladder hanging out in the open, with a shower nozzle on the bottom and a rope you pull to dump the water on you.  Sometimes the men would be taking a shower, totally nude, when a group of nurses or “donut dollies” (female volunteers who would set up temporary stalls where they would hand out pastries and hot coffee and cocoa and sodas to the troops) came into the NDP.   Modesty and shyness were the first civilized aspects to be ignored by infantrymen;  on patrol, there was even a buddy system … one of the other men would come watch over us when we defecated, like bears, in the woods.

The NDP was on the same side of The Road as the Village (the east side) but further south than either the Village or the ARVN compound.   Lima Platoon was currently using the NDP as its base of operations. and had been for just long enough to understand they didn't yet know the terrain as well as they should.


 (click below for more)

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Revolvers .... YECH! (response to comments)

I've very much enjoyed the feeble defense of Revolvers by the 12 people who actually read this blog.  My question is .. I've only had five comments, what are the other 7 of you doing?

Here's the story:  I'm a 911 Snob. Always have been, even when I tried to compete in IPSC with a S&W 659 (9mm).

I also tried to shoot ONE IPSC Match with a revolver, and that was in a December "Concealed Carry Match" at TCGC.  (I use my race gun in the annual "Concealed Carry" match the year before.  I didn't understand why the match staff decided to discount my scores; after all, I started each stage with my Open Pistol with my coat completely concealing my 12" pistol and all the 170mm magazines!)

In short, I'm just not man enough to shoot Revolver Division in IPSC.  AI admit that freely.

However, I object to the suggestions that I'm not qualified to be critical about Revolvers.  I think they're just fine!  I just wouldn't want my sister to carry one.

I currently own five revolvers.  There's a .357 4" N-frame and a .38 special 5-shot stubby in two rooms, and in a third there's a Ruger Blackhawk (Single Action) in .41 magnum tucked away.   The other two revolvers are not appropriate for home defense:  One is an ancient .22lr and the other is another Ruger .41 with a 2-1/2x scope mounted on the top.

Frankly, I think revolvers have their place, and that's stashed in the home.  There are no springs to weaken over the years, because there is no tension on them; for example, a magazine spring (which could cause miss-feeds in a semi-auto, or even the tubular ammunition spring in a pump-action shotgun).

In my own defense ... I use revolvers in "My Own Defense".

(PS: For the humor-deprived ... which does not include any of "The Usual Suspect" readers and certainly not those who offered comments ... the video in the original post was, um, satire?)

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Revolvers ... yech!

I'm working on a war-story post (part faulty memory, part fiction, all bullshit all the time) which so far is outlined in four parts.  Yes, it's too long to read already, even without all the extra added editorial flourishes!   It may take me a while to get around to actually WRITING the damn thing!

So you'll have someone else to laugh at in the meantime, I'm posting a video made by a man who shares my disdain for Revolvers.  You remember Revolvers, don't you?  Great bud-vases, pretty good doorstops?  Yeah, them.

Monday, February 10, 2014

▶"All Your Base Are Belong To Us!"

▶ Iranian TV simulation video of attack to Israel and United States aircraft career - YouTube: Published on Feb 7, 2014

Iranian TV aired video simulation of attack on Israel and United States aircraft career [sic]. Watch related video [ http://lenziran.com/2014/02/08/kabous...]

Persian Surveillance Drones to destroy New York, and Israel. (12 minutes, and quite boring)



Film at .. well, not real soon now.

New category: "Posturing!"

2 wounded in Georgia supermarket shooting | Fox News

2 wounded in Georgia supermarket shooting | Fox News: LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. –
(February 10, 2014)

 Two women were shot Monday inside a suburban Atlanta supermarket that was busy with customers trying to stock up before a winter storm that's widely predicted to hit the area, police said.

Lawrenceville police spokesman Greg Vaughn told local news outlets the shooting happened at a Kroger and that two people of interest were taken into custody. Vaughn said the shooting came after some sort of fight or argument but didn't have details.
"The scene is a little chaotic," Vaughn told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "You can probably imagine with everybody stocking up on bread and milk," he said. Several shoppers told WSB-TV that they hid in freezers while police cleared the store.

Georgia, huh?

They needed this Alabaman to shop there.  That would have resolved the problem before it became a problem.

Iraqi Bombers Bomb Selves; Unexpected Consequences Ensue

BBC News - Iraq militants 'killed by own bomb':
(February 10, 2014)

At least 21 insurgents have been killed in central Iraq after a car bomb was detonated accidentally, officials say. The explosion occurred in the early afternoon on a desert road, about 20km (12 miles) from the city of Samarra, security sources told the BBC. The explosives-filled vehicle was being escorted from the insurgents' compound to a main road when it blew up.

The expression "Hoist by his own petard" comes immediately to mind.

Sweet!

Saturday, February 08, 2014

Freeze, storm, snow, thaw

the thing about a winter storm is that it has four faces, each with its charms and each with its hazards.

At the first freeze, you worry that your car may freeze up. Thankfully, you have kept up your radiator antifreeze to the point where the radiator is protected to sub-zero temperatures. So, havig spent two nights with a lamp with a 60 watt bulb under the hood, you're confident that you have over-reacted.

Second phase .. the storm!

After a while, the Winter storms come. Hail, sleet, and eventually snow ... you're comfortable until you realize that the snow is over a foot deep, and you HAVE to go to the store because you're fast running out of consumables, such as Milk and Cigarettes!

So it takes you a few seconds to rock your car back and forth in he deep drifts, and then that four-wheel drive just floats you out of your drive way and on your way to the grocery.

The snow: The next day the snow is even deeper, but you know that it's a "Dry Cold", and the increasing drifts are just powder. You can DO this! A trip to the store is "No Big Thing"m, and besides the last time you endured such a snow stormn (in 1968 ... so much for Climate Change!) you were driving a 1963 Corvair Spyder Convertible, and you made it though the Mean Streets of Winter okay. Besides, your worst problem in that rear-engine car was steering. So you threw a couple of sandbags in the front trunk, and kept on trucking.1965 ir 2914 ,,, LESS THAN 50 years, and you're still The Man!

The next day, the weatherman speaks of freezing rain, thawing, and "possible power outage". No big deal. Who needs electricity?

I do.

My bed is an electrically heated water bed. IU have candles and a TON of oil lamps, but it gets cold by morning.

And youknow what> The Thaw is not the best thing that can happen,

What is is that the trees have accumulated snow and ice for three days, and then The Thaw makes the ice start to melt. But not evenly. Eventually, the boughs bend, and then they break, and the boughs that hang over power lines?

They break the lines.

That's what happened a half hour ago, and now I'm on UPS power (which lasts about 75 minutes, so I'm typing as fast as I can!

We actually had a major power outage this afternoon. It lasted 82 minutes. But was in the daytime, when the Linemen For The County could see. Now it's dark, and deep, and they have promises to keep. I have no confidence that they can find and repair the breaks in the Main Line before my UPS dies, so I'm typing as fast as I can. (Which is none too fast, considering that the coal-oil lamp doesn't put out enough light for me to see the individual keys on the keyboard; my touch-typing is good, but not THAT GOOD! So I must type slowly, carefully, and use my flashlight when I have typos.)

Am I inconvenienced? Yes, I am. But I wouldn't have it anyother way. Calf-deep snow, freezing cold, power outages ... it sounds funny to say, must sound really weird to read ... but life can become too easy, and we stagnate.

Man needs a challenge from time to time. He NEEDS to understand that life is not without challenges, even if they are only petty inconveniences. I have food, water, air and life. How much more it is appreciated when the conveniences are not available!

---

Last night I found it difficult to go to sleep, because the college students a the end of the block were standing in the street talking loudly. In sub-zero temperatures. At first it was annoying, and then I realized that they were actually enjoying the challenge of the weather! For a while, I thought to join then Then I realized: That's stupid!


NRA Mag Replaces Maxim in Magazine Top 25

NRA Mag Replaces Maxim in Magazine Top 25:
(January, 2014)
According to Ad Age, Maxim's paid circulation fell from 2.5 million to 2 million last year. At the same time. American Rifleman's readership jumped from 1.7 million to 2.2. This puts American Rifleman among the top 25 magazines in circulation. American Rifleman's increased circulation is also indicative of the NRA's growing popularity among Americans. The NRA's Andrew Arulanandam explained: "Last year we had a 25 percent growth in membership. People who sign up for membership get their choice of one of three official journals for the NRA. American Rifleman is one of the most popular journals that we have." It is telling to note that, while gun control proponents continue to claim Americans want more gun control in 2014, rank-and-file Americans are walking past a magazine like Maxim in order to pick up a magazine that covers bolt-action rifles, AR-15s, and shotguns.

This makes sense.

People today reflect the same attitude when Obama took office after the 2008 elections.  Nobody knew where he stood on any issues (he is that good in his rhetoric that we don't know what he's saying, but DAMN he sounded good at the time!) so they voted for him anyway.

Twice.

Even after they knew better.

And both times, people started buying guns, and going to Basic Handgun classes,  and trying desperately to learn how to shoot them.

Why?

First, because they (both times!) were suddenly concerned that their Second Amendment rights would be overturned by Government Fiat, regardless of his solemn promise that "we are not going to take your guns away".

um ... "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".  The jury is still out.  On everything.

So, we have a president who proudly declares "I have a pen, and I have a phone" and apparently that's all he needs to rule.

In the meantime ..digression to a personal story.

In the 1980's I volunteered to tutor an "English as a Second Language" course, as a Teacher's Assistant.  In truth, the teacher was overwhelmed so she halved the class and gave me the second (more 'elementary') class.  I met a young Vietnamese man who probably taught me more about Communism than I taught him about English.

His lesson:  "Pay no attention to what the Communists say; but pay close attention to what they DO!"




I have been applying his warning to my political evaluations since then, and I find the mantra to be entirely applicable more frequently than I find comfortable.

Seems as if I'm not the only one who thinks we should own a gun. 

Washington, DC has begun a firearms registration process which may lead to confiscation ... and even so, they can't keep up with the demand!

The District’s law is the first in the nation to require all firearm registrations to be renewed on a regular basis. A law passed in New York in 2013 requires permits for pistols and assault weapons to be recertified (sic) every five years, though the process only asks for personal information such as the owner’s address and type of weapons owned. Lawmakers intend that information to be used to conduct background checks to determine if a gun owner has become ineligible to own a firearm.
In the District, firearm registration renewal will cost gun owners $48 regardless of the number of guns they own, according to police. The reregistration is completed when the gun owner is fingerprinted, pays the renewal fee, passes a criminal-background check and submits a renewal form that confirms the owner’s home address, the serial number and type of gun owned, and answers a series of questions about their fitness to own a gun.
Any gun owner who does not renew their registration within the designated time frame will have their gun registration canceled, making possession of the firearm illegal.
Possession of an unregistered firearm is a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine or 1 year in jail.

Even so .. DC residents are dancing to the tune.

Washington, DC and Chicago, Illinois are the two most recalcitrant municipals  to (oh so reluctantly) accede to the Supreme Court's ruling that the Constitutional Amendment "Right to Keep And Bear Arms" must be respected.  But it's not necessarily any foot-dragging on the part of the cities to "do the right thing";  there are just so many people who want to finally exercise their constitutional rights to firearms ownership, and only a few policemen who are available to perform the administratrivia necessary to perform the steps required by Local Law.

What if ... what if the Federal Government stepped in and made it as difficult to obey the 2nd Amendment on a National basis?

This is exactly the question which haunts citizens across the country.

And this is exactly the reason why the National Rifle Associations 'rag' is becoming so popular.

WE have only just begun, on a National basis, to understand that our rights are universal and that our government is required to recognize those rights.

But President Obama is almost universally recognized as a Political Wild Card .. we don't know what way he will jump next week.

So, as we did in 2008, and in 2012 .. in 2014 we are frantically doing all we can to ensure that at least we have the physical presence of a firearm for defense of our home, our lives, and our Liberties.

That's what the Founding Fathers had in mine in the 18th Century, and where Our President accepts it or not .. that's what we have in mind today.

The Liberal newspapers in Washington, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle et all be damned!  We know what we want, and it is NOT to feel helpless in our own homes.

Ala + CHL + IRL = DRT

Breaking News: Dallas County Man Killed after Store Shooting in Orrville | CBS 8 News | Top Stories: By Alabama News Network Story Created: Jan 16, 2014 at 3:58 PM CST Story Updated: Jan 16, 2014 at 3:59 PM CST

A Dallas County man is killed after a shooting at a Dollar General store in Orrville. Investigators say the man entered the store with a gun and began waving it around as he walked around the store. They say the man pointed the gun at a customer and forced him to the back of the store. They say the customer then pulled out a gun of his own and shot the man. No arrest has been made and the incident remains under investigation by the Dallas County Sheriff's Office.

If     ALA = Alabama,
and  CHL - Concealed Handgun License,
and  IRL = In Real Life,
then DRT = Dead Right There

In a 'normal world', this announcement would either be (ho hum, dog bites man) a normal news article which was covered widely but without much fanfare.

In an 'imperfect world', it would be covered by major news agencies through-out the land.  Kudos to the hero, and the governor goes on nationwide television to express the thanks of a grateful state for the daring and courage of this man who put his life at risk for the benefit of his fellow citizens.

In this flawed world,  the Media don't want to hear happy endings wherein the good guys take on the bad guys and win .. it's hardly reported at all. And almost ALL of that reportage is by bloggers on the internet.   You can't blame the media; they would rather that nobody but the bad guys have guns.  That way, it's easier to tell the bad guys from the good guys; the bad guys are the ones with the guns.  That IS their mantra, and they are firm believers in the idea that most folks can't tell the players apart when things get complicated.

Unfortunately, it's a complicated world.  Sometimes (but not as often as should be) the Good Guys have guns;  that's why all those people in the Alabama Dollar General Store are still alive.

Well, except for the Bad Guy, of course.  Which is how it should be.

Bearing Arms dot com has more thorough coverage.  According to that source, the villain was one Kevin McLaughlin and the hero was Orrville resident Marlo Ellis.

Ellis was a customer in the store, and while McLaughlin was in the process of herding customers and employees into a store room (with the apparent intent to find "people to shoot"), Ellis pulled out his own (concealed) handgun and shot him dead, Dead, DEAD.

Sheeple are herd critters; heroes shoot the bad guys, and then finish their shopping.

NUANCE:

Sooner or later, some liberal dolt will ask:  "Why didn't he just shoot him in the shoulder?"


We direct their attention to the 1968 movie FIRECREEK, where the bad guy (Henry Fonda) says of the good guy (Jimmy Steward), whom Fonda's character had 'only' shot in the leg:



"I knew better.  Any man worth shootin', is worth killin'"

Today's version: the paperwork is about the same, only you only have to live through the experience to fill out the paperwork.

PS: the store had a sign up which prohibited the open carry of firearms.  There were no restrictions on concealed carry.   That may be something to think about, America.  Best guess is that the man who put up the sign thought it through before he posted it.






Thursday, February 06, 2014

Part Time Jobs

I was phoning with my daughter in San Diego,  as we teased each other about the relative climatic advantages of Southern California vs Central Willamette Valley in Oregon.

She and her husband are trying to relocate to Central California.  Her mother (my ex wife) and stepfather (my best friend) are experiencing both  physical and economic challenges.  Daughter wants to move closer to her mom and step-dad, to support them.

The problem is, Daughter and son-in-law can't find jobs which will allow them to support themselves and their families. 

Said daughter:  "I didn't get the job I applied for; I was #2 on the list, and the woman who was #1 hasn't committed to the job yet.  I DID find another job, but it turned out that it was not a full-time job, but two half-time jobs."

To be more clear .. it was the same job with the same employer, except that it had been administratively redefined.  The same number of hours, the same work ... but not a full-time job.

Why?

Nobody knows.

---

Okay, we do know.

Any employer who offers a full-time job is required to provide benefits which meet certain governmental mandates .. including health-care.

Part-time jobs, however, are not addressed under these same mandates.

What is easier to make it possible for a small business to hire new workers, but to define the job as a part-time job?

The employer is then not responsible for providing full benefits ... such as Health Care.  Which is VERY expensive.

No, not as expensive as it was a few years ago, but MUCH more expensive!

The whole theory of governmental mandated health care is that the employer must provide health care benefits which are much more demanding than they were a few years ago.  Failure to meet those demands  results in penalties .. very expensive penalties .. imposed upon the employer.

But if the job is only part-time, the penalties are fewer, less expensive, or not applicable.

Think about it.  If you were a small business employer, would you hire a person full-time, or hire two people part-time?  I think we're seeing a trend, here.

For entry-level, or non-technical jobs, it's much more economically feasible for an employer to give new employees the choice of a part-time job with no health benefits than to hire a new employee with no or fewer benefits. And the most expensive benefit (now more than ever before) is health care.

And apparently, there is no reason why the employer cannot hire a single employee in two positions ... which just happen to overlap.  On a part-time basis.

Admittedly, I don't know the details here.  I don't know the law .. but who does, in a law for which the printed copy is taller than you are?

The point is that Our President, in his drive to revision re-engineer American society, has presented us with a set of laws which are not only difficult to understand, but also REQUIRE us to do the old things in new ways.

And as always, the American people  are looking for ways to get around the arbitrary laws without going out of business.

Who loses?  Well, my daughter loses.  And her family loses.  They have to find their own health care .. if they decide to accept the new job under the new rules.

This does not sound to me as if the new rules are performing in her favor.  Wasn't that the goal?

Are the new rules designed to encourage workers to improve themselves?  Or are they designed only for people with the lowest level of competence and experience?

What happened to Middle Americans?

Have they been thrown under the bus .. again?

No Joy in Muddville ...

Announcement from the Columbia-cascade Section (Area 1) and the IPSC Director of Albany (Oregon) Rifle and Pistol Club:

Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:48:23 AM
Subject: ARPC USPSA match cancelled

From ARPC Discipline Director Jan ****:

Alex,
Please send out to the section

Points match saturday Feb 8 at ARPC is canceled due to weather.  Currently there is 8 inches of snow on the ground I-5 is closed and chains are required in Albany and south.  Snow is going to continue thru the weekend.

Thanks,
Jan

Here's why:

As you can see, the snow in my driveway is up to the hubcaps on my GeekMobile.  And it's still snowing.   Weather forecast for the next couple of days is "Freezing Rain".

This is the third time in my memory that a CCS match has been cancelled, and it has always been because the prevailing weather conditions has made it unsafe for people to travel.

As for me?   I need groceries, the store is five blocks away, and I think I'll just make do with what I have in the pantry.  Oh, and we've already had two short power outages in my neighborhood ... 20 minutes away from the range.

BALANCE:
Chatted with my daughter in San Diego today.  She and her son are in bed with colds ... even though the weather is in the 80's.  She says my grandson envies me the Oregon Snow.

As well he should!

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Black conservative leaders & the NRA

[SHORT VERSION] Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves - YouTube:
Published on Feb 23, 2013  - SHORT VERSION 
Black conservative leaders discuss the reason the NRA was founded and how gun control is an effort to control people. 
The Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) hosted a group of prominent figures from the African American community at 9:45A.M. on Friday, February 22nd at the National Press Club to speak out against gun control legislation currently being considered on Capitol Hill. CURE is the largest black conservative think tank in the nation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. CURE organized the news conference in response to concerns shared by black conservatives that the Senate proposed laws will restrict their ability to defend themselves, their property and their families. They are also concerned that the proposed gun control legislation puts too much power in the hands of politicians.



(Hat tip to "The G-Man")

Thank the Dred Scott slavery trial for putting the spotlight on the questions of whether slaves could be citizens.   The "worst decision the Supreme Court ever made"  (in 1857) went against the then growing acceptance of abolition, and its opponents made it clear that in the minds of most Americans,  all Americans were citizens ... and were "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights".

Did that single legal decision cause the Civil war?  No, but it certainly was an influencing factor.  Abolition undermined the agrarian ecomomy of the Southern Democrat states, who could not compete in a free market without the advantage of cheap labor.  (Note the current administration's determination to provide "cheap labor" by refusing to prosecute illegal aliens ... for much the same reasons.)

Even through World War II, black Americans were still being repressed by white Americans, through such machinations as literary tests to prove that blacks were capable of understanding the "issues" before they were allowed to vote.  (White citizens were not so closely scrutinized).  And Jim Crow laws, which enforced segregation under a "separate but equal" theory proved in fact to be more separate and less equal than the popular fiction would admit.

After WWII, black American veterans realized that their white neighbors ... including and especially the 'militant arm of Segregation' (the Klu Klux Klan) ... would never allow segregation to end if black Americans were unable to defend themselves.  And so, some took up arms* to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.  As the Founding Fathers said they should. 

(See below for the rest of the story)

Saturday, February 01, 2014

Proposed Oregon Bill Treats Private Citizens as Licensed Dealers

SB1551 - SB1551:  (SUMMARY)

Requires person to request criminal background check before transferring firearm to any other person. Specifies exceptions to background check requirement for family members, inherited firearms and antique firearms. 

Punishes violation with maximum term of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine,or both, for first offense, maximum term of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both, for second offense and maximum term of five years’ imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both, for third or subsequent offense.

WHAT?

This 2014 Senate Bill  ("77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2014 Regular Session")
amends  "S 166.412, 166.432, 166.433, 66.436,166.438, 166.441, 166.460 and 181.150"

This effectively treats private citizens the same as Licensed Firearms dealers when transferring firearms to any other person, with the excepts of antique firearms and if the transferee is a member of the original owner's immediate family (to include step-relationships, grand- parents/children, and aunt/uncle, niece/nephew, etc).

(I note in passing that the available information is that the bill specifically excempts immediate family transfers; this is in direct contradiction to the February 2014 member newsletter from ARPC.  I will be contacting the club .. of whom I am a member .. asking them for a more rigorous evaluation.)

The private citizen has the same responsibility as a licensed firearm dealer to perform a background check, and to maintain records.  The state responsibility is a 'instant' response (or a good faith effort with accountability) to provide a yes/no acknowledgement that the transferee is not proscribed from firearms ownership ... primarily due to a record as a convicted felon.

(see here for possible other informational links to this bill.)

This is NOT to be confused with the 2012 (76th legislative session) Senate Bill 1551, sponsored by Ginny Burdick, "...relating to weapons; amending ORS 166.262 and 166.370 ..." which
Eliminates affirmative defense exempting concealed handgun licensees from crime applicable to possession of firearm or other instrument used as dangerous weapon, while in public building or on grounds adjacent to public building.

WHO?

This bill was sponsored by Senator Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, who stated in a January 23, 2014, OREGONLIVE (opinion) interview that he was not " playing politics" with expanded gun control legislation.


Also, in a January 09, 2014 OREGONLIVE interview, Prozanski said he will "... have the votes to pass it".

Another interviewee quoted in the same article noted that "... Prozanski hasn’t shared the bill draft with his caucus." Regardless, he (the Republican interviewee)  said he won’t support it and that no other Republican is expected to".
The article goes on to observe that "... Democrats maintain a narrow 16-14 majority in the Senate, meaning one defection would crater Prozanski’s chances."

WHY?

Here we enter into the realm of introspection; assume that the following is based not on researched documentation .... the author of the bill has not SPECIFICALLY made this statement, but it is obvious from his parenthetical remarks.

It's all about the "Gun Show Loophole"!

Currently, when you go to a gun show, ALL sales are expected to be carried out on the show-room floor.  Dealers, who constitute the majority of sales tables, are expected to follow the requirements to check all purchasers through NCIC.  And in fact, even private owners (with a table, but no Dealer license) are usually required to perform the same checks.  It's a service that the Gun Show organizers provide, and require.

But if you are wandering through the show floor with a rifle slung over a our shoulder and a 3x5 card saying something like "private sale, $375" (or whatever), anyone is free to follow you out to the parking lot and either complete a cash transaction or ... elsewhere, off the lot.

These are obviously the "Gun Show Loopholes" that this bill is intended to address.

And I don't like it.


WHY NOT?

It has been my experience, and my observation (and it may or may not have been yours, too) that as soon as the "Government" becomes involved in private transactions, all reason climbs on a jetliner to sunnier climes.   Over-regulation, stilted legalistic jargon, and extension by hyperbole soon follow.  (For the purpose of this discussion, the term replies to, roughly, the following definition:  The Government makes a law, and then administratively applies it to coincide with it's preferred definition.  The result? Sometimes, the 'definition' or 'application' seems to bear no immediate relation to the supposed intent of the law, and increased restriction on private activities are justified by arbitrary fiat.)

What we are left with is the conundrum:  Is it better that the Government pass laws to regulate human interactions, or that we prefer the government to stick to its original purpose of serving the people and let us sort out the consequences of our private transactions in the course of normal human experience?

Personally, I think that we are all flawed, and we will make mistakes ... but our private mistakes are in the long run less intrusive than when we invite Government to control our lives in detail!

What would be the benefits?  What the downturn?

If this law were enacted, it would put one more foot on our necks.  As free, law-abiding citizens, I can only see that making criminals of us would only lead to more and greater interference in our private lives.

If we sell a gun to a criminal ... cannot they get the same guns for free by stealing them?  Almost 100% of highly publicized violent crimes involving firearms have shown that the criminals buy guns legally and were not dissuaded by governmental checks because they PASSED those checks;  or they bought them from other criminals; more commonly, that they steal them.

In the case of the highly publicized 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Seungui Cho bought his guns legally and passed the Instant Check by NCIC.

In the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, Adam Lanza murdered his mother and then stole the guns which she had legally purchased ... after an NCIC referral..

In the 1999 Columbine School Massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold convinced an acquaintance to purchase their firearms ... who passed the NCIC check.  It was a legal transaction.

In this country, we are focused in mass shootings.  And we are traumatized every time we hear about the next one.   Others who are less traumatized see the notoriety, are thrilled by it, and begin to plot to gain the same public recognition for themselves.

What's the answer

One answer might be to muzzle the press.  Require newspapers, radio, TV .. all media to immediately discontinue reporting on "massacres".  This might have the effect of dis-encouraging similarly warped personalities from attempting to emulate these attention-getting 'events'.

But that would violate the First Amendment .. and everybody likes that one!

Instead, Politicians have focused on the Second Amendment as the one to violate.  Or, specifically, to "infringe".

As is the case of all political moves, it's a Popularity Contest.  Can't "infringe" upon the First Amendment?  Hey, kids, let's put on a show!

Let's make a big splash and "show those people" that we're worth listening to.

Sure, the criminals won't pay any attention to it, and it will put a tremendous burden on honest people, but ... heck, they'll vote for us anyway.  Why?  Because we will be seen to be "Doing Something!


Nobody will notice that we're "infringing" .. what the heck does THAT mean? ... if we go after an unpopular group!

Except for the REAL orphans of Society.  You know, the kids that nobody loves.  Like-firearms owners.  And who cares about THEM?

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Dud shotgun shell? Two years in jail!

MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing - Washington Times: Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.
 Mark Witaschek is a DC resident whose disgruntled ex-wife turned him into the police for having firearms in his home.  What was illegal in the Federal District.

In a warrant-less search of his home, no firearms were found.  However, police found a 'dud' shotgun shell and charged him with the crime of possessing ammunition ... even though the shotgun shell was obviously (by the firing-pin strike on the primer), not functinable "ammunition".

Witaschek is a shotgun shooter, and does own firearms, but stores his shotguns in the home of his sister in Annapolis ... where possession of firearms is NOT illegal.

He had experienced the 'dud' round while shotgun shooting at a trap range, and kept it as a sourvinier on the desk of his home office, where DC police found it in their 'raid'.

Witaschek was arrested and led away in handcuff as a result of this.  He is out on bail (last word) and awaiting trial and possible incarceration for two years.

Mr. Witaschek’s 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.
D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
Apparently, even the mere possession of expended ammunition ... or "spent shells" ("Brass") ... is cause for arrest and imprisonment in the Demoncratic Non-State of DC.

Ignorance is No Excuse!

Apparently, enforcement of this draconian law has nothing to do with criminal intent, or (since no firearms were found in the home) the ability to act on any supposed criminal intent.  It seems obvious to the casual observer that this man was careless, but not felonious.

Still, he is subject to the letter of the law, and the District of Columbia police department (which, among other needs, is at least partially responsible for security of the Capital and its inhabitants) deems him such a threat to the peace and well-being of the community that they are willing to prosecute him to the full extend of the law .. such as it is, and whatever the cost both fiscal and political.

If I lived in DC, I would be serving a thousand years in jail.  I have 'expended' brass all over my house, and a garage full of gunpowder, primers, bullets, and reloading equipment sufficient to spend weeks reloading ammunition.  In DC, I would be a felon.  In Oregon, I'm just a Gun Nut.

I do not understand these people, really.  Most of my friends are of similar felonious intenr, if simple possession of an empty cartridge would be a felony.

Funny.  People who shoot, who own guns and reload their own ammunition, are among the best people I know.  One wonders why the folks on the East Coast get so worked up about a dud shotgun shell.

I guess they have nothing better to do.  Other than make laws which affect the entire country, I mean.

I'm retired, and I thought *_I_* was bored!



Video here.

We're not talking about camp fire cookies here!

Federal Court Says Connecticut's Aggressive Assault Weapon Ban Is Constitutional - Courant.com: By EDMUND H. MAHONY, emahony@courant.com The Hartford Courant 7:33 p.m. EST, January 30, 2014 HARTFORD —
Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.
 "The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.
What?  Do we now need another "Heller Decision" to ban "lookism"?


The crux of the court decision is this:
In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.
The salient fact which escapes lawmakers in Connecticut is that all guns are designed "to kill people".

Over the centuries since gunpowder was invented, firearms have been historically used in war. As the technology improved, mankind discovered that guns were eminently practical in hunting wild game, to feed ones family.   But even until the 18th Century, guns (in the term of hand-held personal armament, rather than in the sense of "Artillery") were cumbersome, slow to reload, and generally inaccurate ... until long guns with rifle barrels were introduced.  And even then, the smooth-barrelled musket was less efficient and accurate than bows, and took much longer to reload.

The advantage of firearms over archery?  Guns were more intimidating in war, and could maintain their striking power over long distances .. given that actually HITTING a single target was still problematic.  Still, a good archer was the product of decades of training while anyone could use a gun.  This led to the usage of 'massed firepower' in war, because it was cheaper in the long run and was more effective .. if only because of the ease of training more of the yeomanry in their usage.

The charge that "guns are for killing people" is facetious and disingenuous. 

Strong men and fierce warriors, and trained archers (or even crossbow users) were more effective, given body strength and training. Watch the movie "RAN" (Japan, 1985) to see the power of massed archery.

The value of firearms is that it allows even the weakest among us to defend themselves against "strong men and fierce warriors".   

Today, firearms are primarily defensive weapons.   And when federal courts chip away at the Second Amendment, they are making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against attack by people who can physically overpower them.

I direct you to the blog of John Lott, of "More Guns, Less Crime" fame.   His post for 1/30/14 chronicles "Some great defensive gun use stories from 2013".   Generally, these are stories were at home alone when strangers attempted to break into their homes.  Typically, they ended up hiding in a closet and shooting through a door.  Some were living in remote rural areas, where police response was very long.  Typically, by the time the police responded to their frantic 911 phone calls, the attackers had cornered the women, who had nobody to protect them ... and the traumatized women had either driven way, wounded, or killed their attackers by using their guns to protect themselves.

When the courts decide that a specific firearm is not permissible for civilian ownership, or that the firearm holds "too many bullets", or concern themselves with asking "why would anyone need to own a ... " (name the currently unacceptable) variety of firearm, they are NOT limiting the firepower available to savage rapists and murderers, but to otherwise helpless innocents.

---

Those of us who accept guns as tools know that the most dangerous weapon is one which the attacker has, and the defender has not.   Gun laws don't stop the felon, but they severely restrict the choices of the individual who probably knows better than some overpaid, sanctimonious judge who has never hidden in a closet while on the phone with the notoriously powerless 911 operator.  All the operator can do is to say "the police are on the way" and "please keep on the line!"

Parenthetically, I have great respect for 911 operators.  They deal with family and personal crisis every day.  In some of the videos on Lott's website, the operators are saying "do you have a gun?" and "you do what you have to do, Ma'am".  These people .. often other women ... know what it is like to feel helpless and alone.

This judicial decision .. to suggest that guns are 'bad' and must be proscribed, because they are designed "to kill people" ... have no understanding of the real purpose of firearms ownership.

When you are alone, and locked in a closet, and some brute is battering down your doors, sometimes the best two friends you have are the 911 operator and a gun in your hand.  With enough ammunition to defend yourself against a raging stranger whose intentions are NOT to sell you a box of cookies!

PS:  what is "An Assault Weapon"?  One that holds more ammunition than you think should be needed to drive off or kill a home invader!

UPDATE:

Getting back to Connecticut Firearms Registration Laws:

Connecticut firearms owners are revolting against the new laws.
Gun owners in Connecticut have revolted against a new gun control law, with just 38,000 out of 2.4 million high capacity magazines being registered with authorities.
Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, Connecticut passed a law which banned ammunition magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. Residents who had acquired such magazines before the law came into effect were mandated to register them with state police by January 1, 2014. The law also banned assault rifles manufactured after 1994, requiring them to be declared to authorities.
Weeks after the deadline expired, authorities revealed that 50,016 assault weapons and 38,290 ammunition magazines had been registered.
CT News Junkie reported that it is, “unclear how many gun owners own the banned weapons and magazines, but chose not to comply with the registration requirement.”
However, a 2011 Office of Legislative Research study found that, “there are over 2.4 million large capacity magazines in Connecticut that originated at the retail level.” This number didn’t even include those not purchased at the retail level.
With a state motto like "he who is transplanted, still sustains", and having elected Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden as your state senators, it's difficult for this old country boy to understand how you gathered the moxie to defy your state legislature.  But still you have, and we are proud of you for finally standing up for your individual rights.

It's too late for you to assume the state motto of "Live Free or Die", but perhaps you could assume the unofficial state motto of Oregon:'
"Never Give An Inch!"
x
x

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Gun flight: California has "a Pen and a Phone", too!

Gun flight: Smith & Wesson, Ruger quit California over stamping requirement | Fox News:
(January 26, 3014)
A new gun law proponents say helps law enforcement has driven Smith &Wesson and Sturm Ruger out of California, and affirmed the suspicions of firearms rights advocates that the measure is really about making handguns obsolete. 
 The two companies have announced they will stop selling their wares in the nation's most populous state rather than try to comply with a law that requires some handguns to have technology that imprints a tiny stamp on the bullet so it can be traced back to the gun. The companies, and many gun enthusiasts, say so-called "microstamping" technology is unworkable in its present form and can actually impair a gun's performance. 
 “Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms,” the Springfield, Mass.,-based manufacturer said in a statement. “A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes.
Okay, everyone who didn't see this one coming, raise your hand.

What?  No hands at all?

We talked about this less than two weeks ago in "Microstamping in California" (January 12) and "Microstamping in California Part II" (January 14).   Our point then was that the scheme is impractical, and that it was just another attempt by California's "Blue-State" Administration to keep firearms out of the hands of lawful citizens.


Ronnie Barrett, the .50 BMG, and California Lawmakers:
You may recall that in 2003, California passed a law which make the .50 BMG illegal to purchase.  Ronnie Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing (which makes the .50 BMG) famously declined to do business with the State of California in a letter in which he stated:

"This is not about protecting any honest citizen" ... "This is not about a reduction of crime. This is not about anything. This is about the nibbling process to totally disarm the American people."

Also:
"Anybody that's anti-Constitution or anti-United States government, I don't do business with them," Barrett said. "I will not be doing any business with any state agency or local agency that tries to disarm the law-abiding citizen."

(A document which purports to be the text of Barrett's letter is available at FreeRepublic.com)

California legislators suggested that  "the public doesn't need the weapon,"  and:

"This is a rifle that is currently treated like a hunting rifle, which means that any 18-year-old with a valid driver's license can get this," ... "It's less regulated than a handgun. We have no idea who has the gun."

At this time, 11 years later, California LEO organizations may "(have) this gun" ... but Ronnie Barrett will not honor the warranty nor will he continue to perform work on them.

So, essentially:  Screw You, California!  (signed) Ronnie Barrett

---
 
Now S&W and Ruger are sending the same message, and for the same reason.

Liberal legislatures are determined to have their own way, dammit, regardless of constitutional issues.  If they can't do it by directly violating your 2nd Amendment rights, they will screw you administratively.

We see the same haughty attitude at the Federal level, now that President Obama has openly declared war on the Constitution.  HE has "... a pen and a phone..." and if Congress will not comply with his vision, he will write Presidential Findings which allow him to dictate, rather than lead, in determining the future of this country.

Yes, this is preaching to the choir, but most people reading this have already decided that the present Administration is approaching a Dictatorship in attempts to further his vision of a Socialist nation.  (At least he hasn't taken over the oil wells ... yet!)

We won't bore you with the list of decisions which the Executive has made.  Congress can make laws, and the Court can judge the validity of the laws ... but it is up to the Executive to enforce them ... or not.

In America in general, and in California specifically, there is a branch of government which is cleverly performing an administrative end-run on Democracy.  And God help you, California, because both your liberal Courts and your Executive branch are fully behind the Legislative branch's determination to violate your 2nd Amendment Rights.

On a personal note:  since I moved out of California in 1976, I have only returned to visit my Children, and I was so pleased when my Son moved his family out of that state this year.

Driving across the southern border of Oregon makes me feel as if I were entering a Communist Country. 

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Argument for gun control ... or 'texting in public' control?

Authorities: Argument over texting leads to man being fatally shot at Florida movie theater | Fox News:
(January 14, 2014)
WESLEY CHAPEL, Fla. – Authorities say an argument over texting in a Florida movie theater ended with a retired Tampa police captain fatally shooting a man sitting in front of him. The former police captain, 71-year-old Curtis Reeves, has been charged with second-degree murder. It wasn't immediately clear whether he has retained an attorney. Pasco County Sheriff's officials said the shooting happened Monday when Reeves asked 43-year-old Chad Oulson to stop texting at the theater ...

The punch line was ... Oulson was texting to his 3-year old daughter.

More information  available here.

No, I'm not going to even suggest that the shooting was justified.  Reeves contended that Oulson had 'assaulted him' ... with a bag of popcorn!   Since Reeves was a retired police captain, he should have been able to evaluate the threat level more objectively.

It's significant that this deadly assault occurred in Florida, though.  This was the premiere state which allowed concealed carry of firearms.  Initially, the people who thought it was "A Bad Idea!" suggested that it would lead to a series of  'Road Rage' incidents, but it never did, really.

This non-issue outcome encouraged other states to enact similarly permissive laws about concealed carry.

Does this strange incident suggest that the nay-sayers were right, after all?

No, I don't think so. 

Typically, most LEO offices permit their retired members to continue to 'carry' firearms, concealed, in public.  The thinking seems to be that experienced officers have developed the proper judgement to evaluate a situation, and decide whether "deadly force" is justified.

Clearly, in the case of Captain Reeves, that judgement was faulty.

As an Army veteran, I'm usually less benign about the judgement of the "Officer Class" .. speaking in terms of Senior personnel, not in terms of police "officers".  This is not a universal judgement, and on behalf of the retired military officers whom I consider friends ... they're just people, and we judge them by their actions.  But I do have memories of some military officers who are notable mainly for their poor judgement, and not that they are the minority.

Captain Reeves, in my personal opinion, made a terrible mistake in over-reacting to a petty incident.  I will not defend him.  We don't know all the details of the "incident", but I see no reason to believe that his response ... shooting the popcorn-throwing, tot-texting stranger ... could be justified by the circumstances.

I won't give up my opinion, though, that concealed carry -- even in movie theaters -- is justifiable.  Witness the Aurora, Colorado, theater where even a less competent idiot shot up a movie audience during the premiere of a Batman movie.

Were Captain Reeves there and able to use his BETTER judgement, he might have reacted ... better.

At least one hopes he would be pointing a gun at the madman with a rifle, and not at the guy eating popcorn in the next row.

----------

I had a long discussion with a woman whose judgement and expertise I respect.  She presented the question: "Do you think EVERYONE should have a gun?  Or are there some people who just can't be t trusted to exercise good judgement?"

I had to agree with her.  I do know people I would not trust with a gun, and I suspect you do, too.

The question isn't whether those people exist, but who decides who they are?

When that "who" decides on the basis of departmental policy, rather than the circumstances, sometimes the results are disatrous.

But we have become accustomed to disasters in public forums, haven't we?

"Microstamping in California" - Part II

Reviewing the comments on my review of "Microstamping in California", it's obvious that I have not made clear the full wrath detail of my objections to this odious law.

Here's an Instant Replay of the most bizarre portions of this pseudo-technology:

Under this law, firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun's make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each gun, including the firing pin so that, in theory, this information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired.

Given the interest displayed by the respondents, one assumes that the readers are conversant with the details of firearms manufacture.

The portion of the bill with which I took exception ignored the 'firing pin' clause, and emphasized the other "distinct part" of the gun.  (Note:  Most Microstamping Bills .. which failed to pass in EVERY OTHER STATE where they were introduced ... tended to require impressions to be made on only one portion of the cartridge case ... definitively, the base of the cartridge.  That's why Revolvers were almost universally exempt.   They are not cycled by the recoil, but by a purely mechanical process.)

Generally speaking, these bills were applicable to designs where the recoil of a pistol (not a revolver) was used cycle the "Auto-Loading" action.

This is the crux of the problem:  Firearms Manufacturers who hoped to vend new pistols in the offending state would be required to change their manufacturing process in order to either engrave or emboss the details ... including serial number .. on the breach of every slide.   And on the face of every firing pin.

en·grave  (n-grv)
tr.v. en·graved, en·grav·ing, en·graves
1. To carve, cut, or etch into a material: engraved the champion's name on the trophy.
2. To carve, cut, or etch a design or letters into: engraved the silver watch with my monogram.
3.
a. To carve, cut, or etch into a block or surface used for printing.
b. To print from a block or plate made by such a process.
4. To impress deeply as if by carving or etching: The experience was engraved into his memory.

em·boss  (m-bôs, -bs)
tr.v. em·bossed, em·boss·ing, em·boss·es
1. To mold or carve in relief: emboss a design on a coin.
2. To decorate with or as if with a raised design: emboss leather.
3. To adorn; decorate.
4. To cover with many protuberances; stud: "The whole buoy was embossed with barnacles" (Herman Melville).


 If you either "engrave" or "emboss" the information on a primer, much of the impact of the head of the firing pin is expended upon the full surface ... which leads to misfires.  Neither approach tends to maintain the full impact of a firing pin, but one supposes that  both the firing pin and the breach-face would be designed to impress the data as an indentation, rather than to push the majority of the surface away from the areas which would be impacted by either/both the firing pin and the breach-face.


Can you imagine the technology which would be required to remove a portion of the breach-face and still retain the raised (or 'engraving') portion which would act like the typeface of a Linotype printer? How may rounds would it take for the raised surface to wear away?  If the breach-face is designed to 'emboss' the data on the cartridge base, who much accumulated gunpowder residue would it take to fill the un-raised surfaces of the breach-face to the point where the data is obscured?

Over time and repetitive firing, both wear and fouling would tend to obscure the impression on BOTH the primer and the base of the cartridge ... rending the information delivery subject to interpretation by technical obscures who can be counted on to say: "I can't tell if that's a "one" or a "seven" .. or other expressions of undeterminability.



Besides that the engraving or embossing process in such minute detail is prohibitively expensive, it also makes it a requirement that the slide must be perfectly and reliably mated to the frame.

At this time only the frame is  serialized.    Now, to accommodate this bill, the slide and the frame must be matched.  That makes not just one step of accommodation (that the slide and the frame retain the same serial number) but also another step in which they are matched with the model number.   It is not only possible, but likely that the same slide might be used on any number of models.  This is just one more complexity which makes the manufacturing process logrithmically more difficult.

Consider the legal liabilities if a slide and frame may not be perfectly matched by the manufacturer!

Oh, and then the factory assemblers have to match the firing pin to the other two components; that requires that all THREE components .. one major and one minor ... must be perfectly match.

Let's look at the slide.  Generally speaking, if a slide cracks or is otherwise rendered unserviceable, the replacement cost is a matter of a few hundred dollars;  it's a stock part, and requires no special accounting other than billing.

Now, with the requirement that the slide be 'serialized', the cost of creating a new duplicate slide becomes almost prohibitively expensive.

---

But what about the firing pin?

What does it cost to create a firing pin, today?  Pennies.  A couple of dollars, at best.

Now, the cost of creating a firing pin with the exactly correct data EMBOSSED on it is ... much higher.  And again, the legal liability of providing the correct information is daunting.

So, you  cannot get a replacement firing pin (which, like pencils, are subject to wear and frequent replacement) without walking through a number of legals steps.

First, you (the customer) must identify the firing pin.  Also the pistol manufacturer, serial number and model.

Why would the manufacturer want to fill an order for someone who may not even own the firearm for which the replacement parts are supposedly intended?   After all, it would be easy for someone to order replacement slide and firing pin for a pistol which belonged to someone else.  Then he could create a crime scene which (according to the state of California) pointed directly at the owner of another firearm ... even if that firearm had  never left the possession of the true owner!

This requires the manufacturer (at no cost to the state!) of both firing pin and slide to establish a procedure which will definitively identify the purchaser and CONFIRM that identity!

This is, in effect, not only gun registration but registration of whatever parts The State chooses to define as, essentially, a 'firearm'.

It increases not only the cost of the original purchase, but also the cost of maintenance.

It creates a huge clerical burden on the manufacturer, and greatly increases their legal liability,

Their manufacturing processes be damned .. the overhead alone is unbearable.  I cannot imagine a situation which would encourage a firearms manufacture to even attempt to accommodate the manufacturing, support and legal burdens which are required by this bizarre law!

This is in no way an attempt to solve crimes.  This is a blatant, out-and-out attempt to impose gun-control 'by other means'.

The California Legislature (senate and assembly, both) bought into this nefarious scheme with the full intent to deny their law-abiding citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.

SUMMARY:
  • Manufacturing process becomes prohibitively expenseive
  • replacement of worn or broken parts similarly expensive
  • Legal responsibilities for 100%  accuracy also include legal liabilities for manufactures and vendors
  • Replacement parts (firing pins AND slides) only available on 'special/custom' order, and only DIRECTLY from manufacturers
  • Requires registration and tracking procedures for replacement "small parts"
  • Requires acceptance by customers of exceptionally intrusive identification and verification process from non-governmental agencies
  • Ultimately, EVERY segment of parts replacement process becomes entangled in legal issues, more expensive, more frustrating, and more likely to end in disappointment when any party in the transaction fears that legal implications make the exchange too hazardous
  • Customers with a broken gun ... even just a bent firing pin .. may soon find it 'easier' to replace the gun than to walk though the parts-replacement process

Need it be mentioned that most legislators are trained lawyers?  If they can't tax us to death, they can legislate us to death. (Shakespeare got it right.)

And if you live in California, they will do both.

If there was ever a reason for a citizenry to make their political partisanship a one-issue priority ... anti-gun control, I cannot imagine what it would be.

And of course, it's all for the chillllll ... drun ......!

What a bunch of Morons they must think  us to be.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

"Microstamping" in California

Shooting Wire:
(January 10, 2014)
 NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) today filed a lawsuit on behalf of their members against the State of California in Fresno Superior Court challenging the state's microstamping law. NSSF and SAAMI seek to invalidate and enjoin enforcement of provisions of state law enacted in 2007, but not made effective until May 2013, requiring that all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state not already on the California approved handgun roster contain unproven and unreliable microstamping technology. Under this law, firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun's make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each gun, including the firing pin so that, in theory, this information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired.
I have to admit to a certain amount of chagrin when reporting this story.

A few years ago I spent months reporting on this bizarre turn in Gun Control (type "microstamping" in the "search" block near the top of this blogpage).  I had [foolishly] concluded, privately, that this was such an obviously unworkable "solution" to 'gun violence' that everyone would drop it, eventually.

I was aware that it had become public law in California in 2007, but considered it just another knee-jerk reaction by The Land of Fruits and Nuts.

There is no law which is too ridiculous for California to consider seriously by California Legislators, as long as restricts access to The Evil Gun.  I knew that, but I thought .. really, not even California Assembly persons (they are very picky about Politically Correct nomenclatures) would insist on THIS bill!

Silly me.

I should have noticed this May 19, 2013 article on the KDOC TV website:
After years of delays, a gun law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 is finally in effect.
The law requires all new semi-automatic handguns to come equipped with a device that stamps each bullet with the gun's make, model, and serial number.
The law will not be applied to any of the 1,200 guns already on the state's firearm roster.
The law has angered gun rights advocates including the Calguns Foundation which challenged requirements of the state's handgun roster as unconstitutional in a federal court filing.
The law couldn't take effect as it was supposed to in 2010 because of patents on the technology, including at least one filed by the Calguns Foundation to delay the law's implementation.
On Friday, Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified and announced that patents were no longer an issue. Former state Assemblyman Mike Feuer, who authored the law, hailed it as a "monumental day for law enforcement.
Perhaps I did notice it, in passing, but ... it was a flawed report.  The law didn't truly require an automatic ID stamping on each BULLET.

Instead, as more correctly reported in this May 20, 2013, article from Infowars:
In a controversial move that some believe will essentially lead to a de facto ban on semi-automatic handguns, Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that, effective immediately, all new semi-automatic firearms sold in the State of California will require a unique microstamp on every shell ejected when a gun is fired.
The INFOWARS article continues:
Microstamping, or ballistic imprinting, is a technology patented in the 1990′s by engineer and NRA member Todd Lizotte. When a gun is fired, a tiny engraving on the firing pin etches a microscopic identifier onto the cartridge as it is expended by the firearm.
The law, which requires every semi automatic gun sold in the state to imprint the gun’s serial number on the cartridge, was signed into law by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 and was delayed due to patent stipulations in the legislation.
The legislation specified that it would take effect only when the technology was available and all private patents had expired.
But at a Los Angeles news conference Friday, Harris announced that micro-stamping had cleared all technological and patenting hurdles and would be required on newly sold semiautomatics, effective immediately.
Please note the name Todd Lizotte; this was the gentleman with whom I held an extended dialogue on this view 'way back when'.  (Specifically, 2008)

For background information on this dialogue, go to "cogito ergo geek" and enter "Todd Lizotte" in the query box in the upper left-hand corner of the page.)

... Unfortunately, Mr. Lizotte apparently managed to convince the California Assembly persons the micro-stamping technology was currently within the the technical ability of firearms manufacturers everywhere, and that it was viable.

That last one must have been a hard sell!  (Oh, wait .. this is California!  Never mind, it would have been 'attractive' tere.)

So, it's not only current law in California, but enforceable law .. which is a very different thing.

I do have a few points I would like to mention (again) in opposition to this law

Point one:  few firearms manufacturers are likely to accede to this California law.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that firearms manufacturers are likely, let alone willing, to change their tooling process to continue sales to California customers.  Given the current milieu of firearms restrictions in California .. including (but not only) that semi-automatic pistols must demonstrably pass a destructive "drop-test" to prove that they won't "Go Off" when dropped on concrete surfaces from a six feet altitude (all makes, all models, all calibers) California has made business so unappealing to dealers that it has essentially established itself as a "Not In My Back Yard State".  We won't talk about Barrett .50 Cal Rifles sold to California police agencies here.

Point two: the technology is not necessarily workable.

There are a lot of reasons why Lizotte's claims are challenged, not the least is that his technology is not demonstrably workable on ammunition which has been reloaded.

Example:  If we are at a pistol match, and you leave a piece of .45ACP brass on the range, I can pick it up and reload it.

If that brass (which may have been picked up and reloaded by others) ends up at a crime scene, it's impossible to determine exactly whose pistol shot it last.  So the claim that it can be used to identify the firearm which shot it is entirely disproved.  And no, the claim that they an determine "overstamping"  is not proved, either.

So .. it is NOT necessarily a tool which police agencies can use to determine what gun 'fired the fatal bullet'.

 

Point three: the law is not expected to achieve the goals which were used to justify it.


This is NOT technology which has been absolutely been proved reliable in the field.   Even ignoring the previous point of "overstamping",  there has been NO reliably, authoritative documented evidence that the microstamping technology is accepted .. or is expected to be accepted .. in criminal courts to definitively identify the gun which fired the cartridge (shell) which fired the bullet which committed a felony.

Well, bullets  .. or shells  ... don't commit felonies .. and that's a WHOLE other story, but let us ignore that for the moment.

Here's the point

California doesn't give a damn about identifying the "doer" in a violent crime.   They don't expect that, they don't require that.

All California (in the  persons of their state assembly-persons, and state senators) don't care a freaking damn about "fighting Crime", or "Solving Crimes".  They just want to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.  They know they can't get the guns out of the hand of criminals and other outlaws.  Push them hard, and they will admit that .. in private.

It's all Public Relations. 


NO elected official in California expects this law to reduce crime, or to help law enforcement agencies to convict perpetrators of violent crimes.   "Perps" are a drop in the bucket, and never noticed in the important events .. polls.

They just want to get re-elected.  It's all about image, and if you do NOT vote against this bill, you run the risk of being found "soft on crime" ... which means less votes next year.

They won't win if crime goes down.
But they will lose if they don't get re-elected.  Their pocket books are their sole priority.

They lose their job, they have to find honest work.  And they are not qualified.

That's all it is.  It's not about your safety, it's about their job security.

Anybody in California wish to argue otherwise?

I didn't think so.