USPSA to establish new relationship with IPSC

In a surprise move, the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) Board of Directors (BOD) has taken one giant step forwards to establish new permissions for USPSA to compete under rules subtly different from those enacted by the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), while simultaneously forging a closer political bond with the International body.

IPSC publishes updates to its competitive rules in intervals ranging from three to five years. USPSA has typically taken exception to some of these rules, under the premise that the changes are either inapplicable to USPSA or that USPSA finds them administratively untenable given the more 'free-style' nature of USPSA competition or the U.S.A. Second Amendment "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) which more readily acknowledges American individual rights.

IPSC has always labored under a confusing morass of national law, especially since some Regions ... determined by National Laws ... prevent (for example) shooting at 'humanoid' targets or even the ownership or private storage of firearms.

While some American states or munincipalities impose restrictions on the storage or physical possession of firearms, there are few areas where firearms cannot be legally possessed without a minimum requirement of a license or other governmental permission. Also, there are no American areas which restrict the shape and nature of targets which can be shot at with firearms.

This implies a dramatic difference between the legal restriction among American States, and national laws in other parts of the world. While IPSC must cater to the 'least common denominator', at least in the sense of providing competition rules which allow participation by citizens of the most restrictive nation-states, the "least common denominator' bar is a bit higher in America ... generally concerned with magazine capacity and gun-safety tests (eg: California.)

IPSC even provides a 'non-humanoid' shaped target, which has found little acceptance in America .. the home of origin of "Practical Pistol" competition where the "Practical" use of a pistol has historically been assumed to be personal defense against a human aggressor.

The advantage to USPSA is that the BOD would no longer be required to negotiate with ISPC to determine which rules, often inadvantageous to USPSA, would be waived and which would be accepted ... albeit unwllingly on the part of the USPSA BOD.

The new relationship, as defined by the USPSA BOD, would allow USPSA to modify rules of competiton without the need to seek special permission (or "waiver") from IPSC to ignore rules intended to permit competition in countries which have legal restrictions not applicable to American law.

Further, it establishes the right of USPSA to sponsor firearms competition which is generally not supported by IPSC.

An example is 'multi-gun' matches, where three firearms (Rifle, Shotgun, Pistol) may be used in the course of a single stage. This is different from a "Three-Gun" match, where the same three types of firearms may be used but only one type of firearm may be used in a single stage.

Neither of these types of matches are currently officially sanctioned by IPSC. The new agreement would officially recognize a situation (multiple match types) which has ipso facto been sanctioned in USPSA for several years at a National level.

The BOD motion is included in toto, below. This is taken directly from the official BOD meeting minutes (The "Dallas"BOD meeting of March 3, 2006), as previously published by USPSA:

11:27 am

19: IPSC and USPSA-Planning for the future. Area 1 moves to pull off table.

Area 2 seconded.

Area 1 moves as follows:

Insofar as the International Practical Shooting Federation (IPSC) and its sole recognized affiliate for the United States region, The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) share a common interest in promoting shooting competition, and;

Insofar as USPSA has historical, practical and reasonable needs to deviate in several and various ways from the IPSC rules for the conduct of shooting competitions within the United States, and has continuously maintained a long-standing precedent for doing so, and;

Insofar as neither IPSC nor USPSA desire to detrimentally affect their current affiliation, nor to detrimentally affect the image or operations of the other,

The Board of the United States Practical Shooting Association hereby declares its desire to resolve this issue in a manner that benefits the interests of both organizations, to wit:

?? The United States Practical Shooting Association will offer and promote IPSC competition within the United States, in accordance with IPSC rules, and in doing so fully satisfies its obligations under the IPSC constitution and affiliation agreement.

?? Separately, the United States Practical Shooting Association will offer and promote other forms of shooting competition within the United States, in accordance with such rules, policies and procedures as it deems appropriate, with specific details established by further action of the Board.

Because the United States Practical Shooting Association currently operates under an existing IPSC waiver granting authority for a United States rulebook, and because it is our mutual desire to minimize any disruption to competitors within the United States, it is reasonable and necessary for the IPSC Executive Council to approve our request for an extension of the current rulebook waiver through 12/31/2007.

This approach in no way represents a violation of the IPSC Constitution or the affiliation agreement currently in effect between USPSA and IPSC, and in fact represents a resolution to a long-standing conflict and a substantial growth opportunity for both organizations. Accordingly, the Board of the United States Practical Shooting Association directs its President, as the Regional Director for the US Region of IPSC, to communicate this direction to the IPSC Executive Council.

------------‑

Area 4 seconded. Passed

11:50 am

Area 1 moves for USPSA to make announcement release re: agenda item 19: IPSC and USPSA-Planning for the future,

Area 8 seconded.

Passed

This statement not only opens the door for USPSA to freely re-interpret rules according to American law and American values, but at the same time acknowledges IPSC as the ruling body of International Practical Shooting competition.

In other words, IPSC can do what it needs to do, for the benefit of regions outside the United States. At the same time, USPSA can do what IT needs to do, for the benefit of its 15,000 members, in competition within the United States.

In the meantime, USPSA will permit IPSC competition within its national boundaries based upon the 'pure' IPSC rules of competition. While nobody is obliged to attend these "IPSC-Only" matches, they can "vote with their feet" in regards to the degree of interest in 'pure' International Practical Pistol Competition.

This move is entirely in keeping with the democratic principles of American vigor, and establishes IPSC competitive rules as the root-stock of Practical Pistol competition.

Above all, it establishes a test-bed whereby the "IPSC vs USPSA" question can be settled for good, by the most rigorous and practial test possible, and at the same time preserves the vital relationship between IPSC and USPSA.

Dillon Precision is OUR friend!

When I started adding "Resources I Recommend" to my sidebar, it somehow just didn't occur to me to include Dillon Precision to the mix although I can't think of a single 'resource' which is MORE intrinsic to IPSC competition in the US.

In fact, even though I cited Dillon as a new source of the previously 'unobtanium-rated' Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip books, I remained blissfully clueless about the need to provide an easy-access link, or to reinforce the legendary "No Bullshit" Dillon Guarantee.

Okay, these Scottsdale Suppliers are much to dignified to give their guarantee the name which best describes it, but it's true. If you have a problem with anything you buy from Dillon, even if it's not something they build themselves, they'll make it right for you no matter what it costs ... to them. It won't cost YOU anything, except possibly shipping charges to return the item in question.

If you're a Dillon customer, you have already read the many testimonials in their monthly catalog. The ones that come to the front of mine are the 550 (Square Deal, whatever) loading presses that were damaged by user neglect, misfortune, accident or nobody's fault and returned with the hope that Dillon would consent to repair it and charge the customer for parts and labor ... but were instead either completely refurbished OR REPLACED at no charge to the customer.

Dillon calls it the "No Fault" or "No Hassle" warranty, but you know in your heart that it's the No Bullshit Warranty.

This is tacit acceptance that they only stock the best, they only ship the best, and if there's anything wrong you don't have to deal with weasel-words such as "please contact the original manufacturer and provide proof of ownership" ... if you bought it from Dillon, it's repaired or replaced by Dillon, even if you are the Dork that broke it by misuse or misadventure.

Example: over ten years ago, I managed to crunch a primer in my XL650 while loading 9mm ammunition. The primer exploded, as did a few others in the primer column. No damage to me or mine, but the charge shot the plastic primer-follower rod into the ceiling, and the pieces that I DID find were twisted like a corkscrew.

I called Dillon to ask for replacement parts.

The said I had a 'obsolete design' of the primer-feed assembly, lacking the safety features of current releases. (The press was about 5 years old at the time.) They sent an entire new-design primer assembly, with instructions on how to install it, and asked only that I return the old primer assembly to insure that it would never be used by another unsuspecting customer.

Price to me: the phone call ... and it was a 1-800 number which means it didn't cost me a cent. And they shipped it to me by air express, no charge for expedited shipping. Dillon understands that we often wait until the last minute to reload for an IPSC match, and we NEED to get our loading press back online quickly.

--

The incident that prompted this unsolicited testimonial, however, is much more recent.

Last week I wrote that I discovered Col. Jeff Cooper's "Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip" (Volume 1) was available directly from Dillon. Not only that, but Volume II was also available. This was Good News to me, because I had lost my Volume I in a burglary some years ago, and I had only read it once. The best prices I could find on Amazon.com were totally unacceptable. Current offerings ... one at $95.27 and another at $199.00!) Dillon had Volume I listed at $29.95 and VOlume II listed at $39.95. I ordered one copy of each the same night as the original post!

They had them in stock, too, and I received my book order within five business days.

The only problem was, instead of receiving one copy of each, I received two copies of Volume II.

Arrggghh!

I went to the Dillon website, found the 'contact us' email address, and explained my problem. I offered to return the extra copy of the book if they would give me a "Return Merchandise Authorization Number" (RMA) so I would get credit. I cited the invoice number, which clearly indicated that I should receive one of each volume, and also included my Customer Number, my name, address and telephone number.

Not reply from email, no phone calls. For three days I was curious about whether Dillon actually monitored their "contact us" traffic.

Then, on the third business day (last Friday), I received a shipment from Dillon.

Inside was Col. Jeff Cooper's "Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip: Volume I" in it's familiar blue binding. Also, an invoice with "no charge", a shippping label made out to Dillon's "RETURNS" department, and a pre-paid postage label for $8.50 ... the Parcel Post rate, not the "Books" rate.

Five minutes after I got home and opened the box, I had put the superfluous copy of GGG II into the box, written "You Done Good, Guys!" on the invoice and laid it on the GGG II copy, replaced the packing, sealed the box and affixed the address label and supplied postage to the outside. Saturday Morning I went to the post office and explained that I was not shipping a bomb but returning a book (the post office is very particular about the big, heavy boxes they ship now-days) and was assurred that it should arrive at its destination in five business days.

Cause of the shipping error: clearly Dillons.

Expenses incurred: entirely Dillons.

Credit for making good on a simple, common slip: entirely Dillons!

With any other vendor, I would have had to prove everything, and they wouldn't have shipped the correct volume until they had received the superfluous copy. Not Dillon. They didn't ask any questions, they assumed I was an honest man and a valued customer, and did what was necessary to make it right with a minimum of paperwork, delay and complication.

Heck, I could have kept the extra copy of GGG II and sold it on Ebay, to my advantage.

But I AM an honest man, and I DO value my given word.

The same can be said of Dillon Precision.

It's amazing how simple Trade can be, when all parties assume each other to be operating on the Good Faith Principle.

Bottom line: if you need a thing, and you can get it from Dillon or you can get it from some other vendor -- buy from Dillon. You will never regret it. In seventeen years of buying both via phone and via the internet, I have never regretted it.

You have The Geek's word on it.

And more important, you have Dillon's word for it.

Take it to the bank.

Steel Is My Friend

Steel targets can be intimidating when you're shooting an IPSC match. Some competitors are daunted when presented with a steel-target array (plates, US poppers, Pepper Poppers) and, conscious of the inexorable movement of the clock, shoot too fast ... and miss.

Steel targets are smaller than IPSC targets. You don't get to hose them down, because there is no chance of getting a 'near miss' that counts. You either hit the A-zone, or you don't. When you miss the A-zone on a steel target, you get no credit. Your only choice is to eat the miss, or make up the shot.

Two years ago, SWMBO was uncomfortable with shooting Steel targets. Our friend Randomly Hittin' Witten and I took her to the range and spend a few hours shooting at steel-only stages. The theme was "Steel Is My Friend" ... because when you hit a steel target, it's reactive and you know if you hit it or not. The lesson: slow down (and get the hits) to shoot fast.

Fast-forward to the Dundee club match in April, 2006. This was a classifier match, but there were two non-classifier stages presented as well, for variety. The classifiers were 'technical stages', and generally not as exciting as one might wish. They tested for pinpoint accuracy, reloading, strong-hand / weak-hand shooting and shooting from an awkward position. These are all of the skills we must master to be competitive, but they are B-O-R-I-N-G!

Of the two 'fun stages', perhaps the most challenging was the Steel stage.

Picture this:

Start from a position where you can't see the targets, draw and run to the first shooting position.
Arriving out of breath and off-balance, you shoot at;
A plate rack with six 8" plates, plus two freestanding 8" plates and a US popper on the ground.

Move to another shooting position, where you can see a six-target array of US Poppers (very small) arranged like pins in a bowling alley, with a wide index to pick up another 8" plate which is hidden behind a barrel from any other position.

Transition to a final position, where you can (with some body-language movement between targets) engage a final 8" plate, two more US poppers and a final Pepper Popper.

She did everything exactly right. Didn't hurry, got a good sight picture on every target, took some chances by shooting on the move and cleaned the stage. She ended up 15th overall on the 20-round stage for the match (stage #6: Speedy Steel). And what's more, she did it with a borrowed gun.


To musically accompany this video, I've chosen "Witchy Woman" by the Eagles, if only for the line:

"Raven Hair,
And Ruby Lips,
Sparks fly from her fingertips"

Somehow, it seemed to fit.

Bang. Clang!

(Thanx to Caryn S. for the video!)

Shooter strips to raise funds

Shooter strips to raise funds - Aftenposten.no

Aftenpost, the Norwegian online newspaper, is one of my favorite online sources of bizarre news, challenged only by the WaiWai section of Japan's Mainichi Daily News.

They don't promote themselves as a source of Strange News, Aftenposten doesn't seem to have any problems finding odd people doing odd things.

Case in point: a candidate for the Norwegian National Olympic Shooting Team has found an unusual way to finance this trip to Beijing.

Are Hansen seems to be shooting from the hip, quite literally. The 24-year-old shooting champion has taken to posing naked, with his rifle strategically held, in a quest to raise funds needed for competition.

Hansen is quick to reveal the naked truth behind his unorthodox move: He needs money if he hopes to be able to compete in the next Olympics in Beijing.

He hopes that posing naked for all but his guns and medals, and then selling the photos, will attract some attention and some funds. The main problem is that the Norwegian shooters' association (Norges Shytterforbund) has no main sponsor, and that means those taking part in international competition need to bear a lot of the expense themselves.

Hansen, for example, took part in the World Cup opening in China in March, made it to the finals and ended in eight place. But it was an expensive presentation. "We had to pay half the tour ourselves, and for me, that amounted to NOK 10,000," he said.

That's a lot of money for the engineering student who lives in Sarpsborg. Hansen doesn't mean to be firing away at Norway's Olympic committee, but he'd hoped his good results would have attracted more funding. He does have a NOK 50,000 grant from the committee, but that only covers his weapons and ammunition.

"We simply can't afford to send out all the shooters who qualify," admits national shooting coach Christian Lilleng. Even when Norway has never had so many good shooters as it does now.

In the meantime, Hansen figures the shooting season will cost him around NOK 150,000, and that uncovering himself may help him cover his expenses.

It's hard to predict whether Hansen can generate sufficient interest to finance his trip, but nobody can't question that he is highly motivated.

This is a young man who really REALLY wants to compete. I admire his determination, and when I compare it to my own personal indicision about shooting the ARPC Single Stack Championship, Columbia Cascade Sectional Tournament, The Croc Match and USPSA's Area One Tournament (all held in Oregon over the 2006 USPSA Shooting Season, and all 'lost-brass' matches) because of the expense, I would be the first to admit that my own dedication does not stand comparison.

Here's an offer: Send money. For every match that is fully funded by public donations, Jerry the Geek will NOT walk naked through the range protected from the sight of revolted onlookers only by an STI Open Pistol.

While a mere Derringer is sufficient bulk to conceal The Geek's "ultimate privacy", the rest isn't all that appealing, either. [shudder!]

Send your checks to Jerry the Geek, 1 Main Street, Geekistan, Oregon.

To paraphrase Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles; "Everybody gives, or the Geek shows it!"

IPSC: STI TruSight accepted in USPSA Limited Division

Dave Skinner, President and CEO of STI, Inc. (Georgetown, Texas) announced yesterday that the STI TriSight has completed a production run of 500 guns and, upon application, has been accepted by the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) as legal for competition within the United States in Limited Division.

The pistol ( MSRP $1,984.40) is available in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP calibers.

The salient feature of this new model varient of the venerable STI EDGE is that the front sight is mounted on the barrel, not on the slide, providing (according to STI) a faster slide cycling time with its lighter 4-1/2" slide and a faster sight-pickup.

The pistol weighs in at 36.1 ounces, which makes it lighter, STI claims, than " pistols comparable to it in its class."

The STI Edge, which is another (and older design) full-dust-cover pistol, weighs 39.0 ounces and is available (MSRP $1,874.00) in not only the same 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP calibers but also in .38 super. It was also available in 10mm, because I bought the first 10mm STI Edge in 2000, when it was similarly declared "IPSC Legal" by USPSA. I suspect that the greater weight is provided by the longer dust-cover on the Edge, assuming the overall barrel length (including "Expansion Chamber", on the TruSight) is the same.


The TruSight is controversial in USPSA circles (especially the "Unofficial IPSC List") because the addition to the muzzle is actually an 'expansion chamber', 0.100" larger than the bore. Whether this provides any actual competitive advantage is yet to be seen, because field tests are not yet available.

The controversy is provided free-of-charge by the "expansion chamber", which is the large extrusion on the muzzle-end of the barrel (shown above). Because it is bored out slightly larger than the barrel diameter (and the diameter of the exit port, which is supposedly the same or nearly the same diameter as the barrel), some critics have suggested that it is a "compensator", allowing expansion of exhaust gasses and therefore softening the recoil. The argument is that the "expansion chamber", they claim, provides a distinct and signifigant advantage in that it uses the exhaust gasses to either lessen the perceived recoil, or muzzle-flip; which, or what, is not clear.

Since this is an entirely new innovation, and none of the critics have had the opportunity to actually fire the TruSight, all of the commentary so far available has been limited to supposition and expostulation ... not empirical measurement.

Had either the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) or USPSA bothered to define a 'compensator', there might be some grounds for objection to this design in Limited Class ... which specifically outlaws 'compensators'. Unfortunately for the detractors, the term can only be defined in 'traditional' terms which include the presence of an 'exhaust port'; clearly absent in the current design.

Because the 'expansion chamber' has removed metal from the front of the pistol, the exclusion based upon "added weight" is obviated.

And while the current USPSA rule book forbids "modifications" to the pistol, for various reasons, this is a feature of a production gun (500 guns having been manufactured, and so certified by the manufacturer). This is clearly not a 'modification' but a salient feature of a production gun.

Finally, USPSA has officially approved it, which renders all objections moot.

We don't know whether it SHOULD have been approved (although our evaluation, based purely on the specifications and the published rule book do not contradict the decision of the USPA Board of Directors), and we certainly have not the means or opportunity to objectively determine whether it provides a competitive advantage in Limited Division by virtue of reduced recoil or muzzle-flip. But one thing is clear:

The STI TruSight IS USPSA Legal in Limited Division.

It's a done deal.

If you think you can profit competitively by buying and using an STI TruSight, the door is wide open.

Go for it.

UPDATE: April 20, 2006
Check the comments for extended discussion on the subject of "Competitive Advantage" vs legality of 'the device' in a Limited Division pistol.

Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip

Amazon.com: The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip: Books: Jeff Cooper
Some time ago, I mentioned that I was on the lookout for a replacement of Jeff Cooper's "Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip".

This was ... and is ... a collection of his writings for Cooper's Corner, which I believe was a regular one- or two-page feature of Guns & Ammo Magazine.

Memory fades with age, but I believe that it was eventually discontinued because The Colonel's Commentary was just too controversial and outspoken to be acceptable in a Politically Correct world. Jeff Cooper had the disconcerting habit of saying what he thought, and after trying to 'fix' the problem with disclaimers, the magazine eventually discontinued the column.

Today, you can still read Cooper's Commentaries on the 'net, but you have to be very patient as it only comes out once a month. That wasn't a particular hardship when it was being published in a monthly magazine, but when you're surfing the net you tend to become ... impatient.

As I say, my copy of The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip was stolen from my car by some loonies who took the book, but left a thousand rounds of 10mm ammunition in the back. Either they were discriminating readers, or they had no inclination to pack 20 pounds of full ammo-can as they ran from the parking lot. Frankly, I had rather they stole the ammo and left the book. I can always replace the ammo, but the book was priced between $100 and $200 on the internet, almost regardless of the condition. (Current prices on Amazon, see the link at the top, START at $95.)

When I received my May, 2006, Dillon Precision catalog the other day, I was startled to find they had copies available for $29.95!

I'm still in shock, but I'll be buying a copy real-soon-now, you betcha, along with a few other items I need (9mm/38super cartridge boxes, de-capping pins for the XL650 ... I'm down to 3 since I ran into a handful of berdan-primed 9mm Largo brass in my range-gleanings.)

While I'm at it, I might as well plunk down another $40 and buy The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip 2 ("covers years 1990 - 2000).

I know I'm going to want it, and maybe I can throw away the set of dusty hard-cover printouts from the website that I've been hanging on to re-read.

I already have "To Ride ...", so I don't need to buy that. I may wait for a while before I get "Another Country". And I'm not interested in "Art of the Rifle". I've pretty much exhausted my interest in hunting and rifle shooting.

I feel like a kid at Christmas. I didn't see this one coming, I never expected another publishing run on this fine American Shooter (not to be confused with the tv show) book. It's to the credit of Dillon Precision that they did whatever they did to get this either republished, or find a forgotten cache of original 1989 copies.

This is about 1200 pages of 6" x 9.2" x 1.5" Americana, and I heartily recommend it. But don't buy it until I get my copy, okay? Because if you buy the book, and it's out of stock when my order gets in, and you live in the Pacific NorthWet, I'll be begging you to lend me the book until you finally wilt.

Note: If you go to the Amazon.com link, you'll find my September 19, 2005, comments. I begged people to give up their copy for the sake of The Geek, but I never got any response.

Those Amazonians are a heartless crew.

UPDATE: I've just placed my order, online, for The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip and The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip 2, through Dillon Precision. Feel free to order as many copies as you wish. And if you don't get one because it's already sold out, don't come crying to me. I've got mine!

The Village

The match meant absolutely nothing.

You know what I mean. It's like a football (basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer) game, the results of which would have no effect on the league standing. Except it was an IPSC match, the competitors were all amateurs who were out on an unseasonably sunny Spring day in Oregon, spending their money and their time enjoying a sport that they all loved.

The Hobo Brasser was back for his first Oregon match of the year, having spent the previous three months (or was it four?) Snowbirding in Texas.

The clement weather drew 83 competitors to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club on an April Saturday, for no better purpose than to meet&greet, foul the air with burnt powder and unsolicited political opinion, punch holes in expensive cardboard, perhaps shake the winter doldrums in a tacit vote for Sunny Summer Days yet to come.

Blue skies and bullets downrange, it don't get no better'n this. Even urbane professionals can't resist the urge to feel the gravel beneath their feet and the sunshine on their shoulders (make them happy in a way John Denver would never have understood!) We all have a little redneck in our souls, and we tend to talk a little country in this one month of the year when we can shoot an IPSC match with no pressure of competition but much to look forward to.

One match a month is a Points Match, when we crank the competitive challenge of the stage designs up a notch or three and pretend that we really care whether we win or lose.

This was not one of those matches.

If anything, it was a celebration of Spring, and we were perhaps all a little giddy with the song of the still-absent Robins ... who hadn't wised up that it was time to put a red-breasted show on for the wife and family who professed to believe that we HAD to shoot this match to get ready for the 2006 Competitive Season.

That's the nice thing about a family. You pretend that participation at The Match is a moment of great portent, and they pretend to believe you. The lawn remains unmowed and ragged as father and son ... The Old Man and The Boy, in the words of Ruark ... make their way to the range for a rite of passage which isn't even the first match of the year; it's merely the first really nice day match of the year.

SWMBO and I were squadded with some of the Usual Suspects. It was a treat to see Harold The Barbarian there, because he has been travelling on business for the past 30,000+ miles and we had missed him.

AJ and KJ weren't there, they've kind of dropped out of the IPSC scene due to 'other priorities' and the unfair influence of a brand new Harley Davidson Motorcycle. [sigh!]

As a result of many factors, we were squadded with a melange of people with whom we don't often shoot. Among these more or less new-to-us were Trey and Drew.

Trey is a thirty-something C-Production shooter. Drew is a mid-teens D-Limited Junior. Both were using glocks, and knew each other from non-IPSC family connections.

As the match developed, Trey and Drew (short for Andrew) started a little friendly competition. Trey offered to give five dollars to Drew if he, Drew, could get more alpha-hits than him, Trey. There was no downside to the 'bet'. It was no more than a gentle challenge to the Junior shooter to make his best effort to beat the more experienced, older shooter in a clearly defined, easily quantifiable friendly competition.

Come on, kid. Give it your best shot. Don't worry about speed; focus on accuracy. All you have to do to win the brass ring.

In the blink of an eye, this was no longer just a Saturday at the Range. It had turned into a Shooting Match.

The Old Man was no longer just another guy on the the gravel, he was An Opponent.

The Boy was no longer just a Boy, he was A Contender determined to Do His Best and show all of the Old Men that he could stand his ground and fight it out for the greater glory of ... something or other.

For six stages the went back and forth. The Boy never quite got ahead, but he never quit. After each stage they followed the Scorekeeper around and borrowed his pen so they could write their Alpha-count on the palm of their hand, soon to be transferred to a ragged scrap of paper. This wasn't an official score, it was a talley of the challenge offered and the challenge met.

Who won? I don't know. The rest of the squad ... Old Men, all ... kept a peripheral view of the competition, unwilling to spoil it for the participants by showing an unseemly interest.

The final accounting, and the pay-out (or lack of pay-out) was a private thing between The Old Man and The Boy. Nobody was willing to spoil the moment by interfering in that intensely personal competition.

--

Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote a book about "It Takes A Village" (to raise a child), and while I'm no fan of HillBill, I have to admit that somewhere in this obscure tome she may have had a point. Whether she actually made the point is as inconsequential as the actual results of this competition.

We all, all of us Old Men, have a responsibility to teach the next generation what sports and competition and basic human interaction are all about. Some of us see this, and take the time/make the effort to do what has to be done to teach The Boy how to act.

Most of us don't, and that's okay. If you don't see the need, if you don't know how to respond to it, you probably aren't the right person to teach by example. Those few remaining Old Men don't even have to think about it

They just love the children, and by example they make men of boys. In doing so, they show that you don't have to be a Feral Child (as so many young men are today) to become a Man.

The match didn't mean a thing, but it was important because ...

Well, you know.

2005 Croc Match: Jungle Run Junior S. Kemper

The Jungle Run at the (Dundee, Oregon) Banzai Ballistic Croc Match YOU GOT BULLETS? must be the ultimate "IPSC Field Course".

The targets are hidden behind trees, bushes, ferns and the occasional no-shoot. Worse, it's sucha a target-rich environment, and extends over such a long linear distance (50 yards, give or take) that it would be virtually impossible to remember where the targets are hidden.

But that's not the worst part; the worst is that it's a Surprise Course, and you don't even get to SEE the stage before you shoot it. There are always one or two or more fern-cloaked targets that you don't see, unless you are paying very close attention, so if you're inclined to merely take CRO Loren's Mystery-Clue advise and "RUN!", you'll be sure to gain a couple of miss/failure-to-engage penalties.

Your only choice is to move carefully, watch both sides of the trail, and trust Loren and Sherrie to have hidden a couple of sneaky-buggers at the one place where you are sure to be distracted.

Here's Junior-shooter S. Kemper's first Croc Match Jungle Run. Pay close attention, as almost half-way through the stage he paused during a reload to make sure that the RO team is in a safe position, well behind him. This kind of dedication to Safety above all other considerations is a result of the kind of training which continues to keep IPSC a safe sport in even the most thrill-packed situations, and we're glad to see that "IPSC: The Next Generation" is alive and well in Oregon.




(Original AVI-format video courtesy Ron Downs)
We'll probably see a couple more Juniors videos during the next week or two, as they attempt the Jungle Run. (If I can get this furslignener embedded code thingie to work!)

If you think you're tough enough to face the dreaded Jungle Run, the 2006 version (which shall certainly be different ... and tougher!) will take place during Labor Day Weekend (September 2-3.) For early registration, contact Bill Marrs, also known as "Barsoom" for reasons which may not be obvious if you're not a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Entry forms are not yet available on the Internet, but you can bet your jungle boots that when they are, you'll find an announcement here at Cogito Ergo Geek, or on the Columbia Cascade Section or Dundee Club websites. Certainly, it will be available in the USPSA Front Sight Magazine, perhaps a little closer to the actual match date.

The Captain and the Nihilist

Captain of a Crew of One: The Sword of Damocles
As I age (speaking in terms of blogging experience), I find that I am increasingly reluctant to directly reference the writings of other Bloggers.

Those whom I especially respect, I link to on the sidebar and expect you to go visit them as frequently as I do. You read their stuff, you get their drift, and you can make your own damn decision whether you hold their work in as high regard as do I.

For me to quote them seems like some kind of perverse reguritation. You see their articles, you can make up your own mind.

Once in a while, though, we encounter a post which seems especially significant in light of something-or-other (which we may not be able to define, but dammit we know it when we see it!)

So it is that I draw your attention to the April 5, 2006 article by Captain of a Crew of One, appropriately entitled "The Sword of Damocles".

Damocles, you may recall, was a sycophant in the 4th century court of the Tyrant of Syracuse (Greece, not New York) Dionysus. (I always though Dionysus was the Greek equivalent of Baccus, the god of Wine, and Festival, and Drunken Debauchery ... but what do I know?) Dam casually observed one day how idyllic was the life of the Tyrant, and at the next feast he was treated to the sight of a sword hanging over his own head, suspended by a single horse-hair. The thrust of the legend is that being in power doesn't necessarily mean that life is always good for the boss; no matter who you are, no matter how powerful you are in your house, you are still subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

A Nihilist, on the other hand, is one who believes only in Nihilism: "an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. "

That implies that your own decisions, based purely on subjective values, are sufficient without extential evidence. I've chosen the term "Nihilist" to describe a "New Jersey woman" (see below) who, in making decisions about the upbringing of her child, chooses priorities which differ from mine. It may be inapplicable, and it's certainly unfair ... but the jazzy title did catch your attention, didn't it?


The story told by The Captain is of a New Jersey woman who is so Politically Correct that her jaws must ache every time she clenches her teeth to speak. She has forbidden guns in the house ... even (or especially) toy guns. But one day her young son breaks his piggy bank to buy a plastic sword, a plastic dagger, and a bow-and-arrow with rubber suction darts. He is aware that "mommy doesn't like weapons", but loves her son so much that she is unable to deny him this small freedom ... as long as he is just "shooting vegetables". (She actually quotes this line, and abhores the attitude in an acquaintance of hers, but still she adopts it when her son promises "I'll just shoot trees". One wonders if she sees herself in this apparent aside, but one suspects that she doesn't consciously realize that she is just like the mother of the boy that she "feel(s) sorry for".

The Captain takes this grain and mills it into fine grist. As he discusses the boy-ness of boys, the male-ness of males, and how important it is that overly protective mothers not spend the entire childhood of their children stifling the natural instincts of developing men to teach themselves to protect the family, The Captain develops the theme that it is not only doing a disservice to our children when we attempt to over protect them, but also that love will triumph as we instinctively perceive that our intellectual priorities my not be as important as the proper development of the ego of our children.

That is, we can teach our children our own personal political priorities, but there comes a time in every child's life when we realize that in insisting that they cleave to our beliefs, we are no longer teaching them; we face the danger of dominating them. The wise parent must eventually acknowledge that our children are not ourselves writ small, but are developing their own personalities and their own judgement. The danger is that we can exercise our parental power to their detriment.

That moment inevitably comes at a much earlier time than we have prepared ourself for, and we always doubt that our permissions are more valid than our domination.

It is to the great credit of this mother that she is able to accept the inevitable and trust in the values she has instilled in her son. She can step aside and, having reinforced the warning that these are toys and weapons, and must be treated as weapons, they must never be turned against people -- she is willing to aquiesce in his desire to buy his own plastic sword, plastic dagger, and bow-and-arrow with rubber suction tips.

The Captain is eloquent in his analysis of the quandry. My favorite sentence in his essay is:

... parents like Ms. DeVoe seem to suffer from “ostrich” disease. You know, that ailment that causes you to imagine that if you ignore reality it will just go away and leave you alone.

He is speaking, of course, of her early indicision and the way she at first agonizes over her situation. He may have also been referring to her initial embarassement when her friends see that her son has 'weapons'. Her response to her son is:

"I don't like the fact that it involves guns and you shoot each other," I objected feebly.

Her justification to her PC friends and acquaintances:

Naturally, he couldn't resist showing off his new arsenal. He chooses two weapon-hating moms in the grocery store and unveils his new toy. He doesn't notice their obvious lack of enthusiasm or their questioning looks at me. I feel my face getting red.

"He spent his own allowance," I mutter. "He had his heart set on it."

Fortunately, the mother does allow her love for her son to prevent her 'natural' instinct to dominate him. After all, it's not the Evil Cap Pistol, and he has sworn to her that he will 'only shoot trees'.

--

My own reaction is probably less gentle than The Captain. In this post-WWII, post-Korea, post-Vietnam / Bosnia / Twin Towers / Afghanistan / Iraq and "they choose life, we choose death" era, I would suggest that there is a reasonable liklihood that the young man's life will not always include the protective influence of a PC mother. It is possible that he will find himself in apolcalyptic situations, no matter how far removed, where he will be opposed by a people who do NOT accept his learned pacifist tendencies, and he will be required to choose between acceptance of a dominating 'ology' and continuance of his own way of life, or even his physical life and the life of his family.

He would be better equipped if this young man had at least some smattering of experience which suggested that the world does not always turn as we would like it, but as it will.

When the choice is not always yours, it is well to be able to recognize the difference.

Life is what happens when you have made other plans.

SWMBO speaks

SWMBO allowed me to talk her into posting on the blog. Unfortunately, we had trouble with the YOUTUBE code and lost her comments.

Instead of trying to ply her with liquor, I'll merely mention that this is her first exercise in editing a *.MPG file into a presentable *.WMV movie, and presenting it in an easy-to-view format on the blog.

There was some controversy on this stage, as some observers (The Hobo Brasser, who is back from Snowbirding) contended that the Competitor (Jerry the Geek) may have broken the 180 rule when ducking under the Cooper Tunnel. To this we can only reply ... doesn't show up in the video, dude; didn't happen, either!

The video makes The Geek look good, if only because it doesn't show the Alpha/Mike/Noshoot on the first target on the stage. [Note to self: Shoot, THEN traverse to the next target!]

Video plays on-screen, duration: 19 seconds

BATF Wars against Gunsmiths

I received this email today from The Unofficial IPSC list (H/T: JH). As a result, I subscribed to "The Outdoor Wire" newsletter, but I haven't received a copy yet so I can't vouch for its veracity. And my internet search, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, hasn't turned up a MSM source

Even though my source (JH) has always been reliable, I encourage you to consider this an "Internet Rumor" until it can be confirmed.

Are we going to lose our custom gunsmiths?

When does customization of a firearm become manufacturing? That seemingly simple question is occupying the near undivided attention of the firearms industry. Observers say it is a question with the potential to become a firestorm that could put custom gunsmiths out of business; if not behind bars.

The controversy began with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms inspection of Competitive Edge Gunworks in Bogard, Missouri. BATF and tax agents appeared and began examining the company's records. When they finished, owner Larry Crow was told he potentially faced felony charges for manufacturing firearms without a license.

Crow says he was stunned.

Agents went on to tell him that his manufacturing status would mean liability for federal excise taxes - and penalties - from the beginning of his business. There is, they told the thunderstruck Crow, no statute of limitations for failing to file Federal Excise Taxes, but there were serious penalties.

"I'm confused, " an obviously shaken Crow told The Outdoor Wire during a telephone conversation last Thursday, "and more than a little concerned."

Since the BATF visit, Crow hasn't done any gunsmithing, but has initiated the licensure process necessary to change his classification from gunsmith to manufacturer. He also says he's agreed with the BATF to settle the whole matter as quickly as possible. In the meantime, Crow says he's struggling financially, but despite the costs of waiting for his licensure process to be completed, he told The Outdoor Wire "I'm not doing any more work until the manufacturing paperwork's complete."

Whether Crow's is a single case brought by an overzealous agent or the opening shot of a BATF campaign against gunsmiths has the entire firearms industry abuzz.

If it proves to be the first shot of another fight, the stakes are very high. The fallout would be felt by virtually any company or individual involved in the gunsmithing business; from individual gunsmiths and educators teaching firearms repair to companies like Brownells or Midway USA. Those companies primarily supply componentry to gunsmiths, but also produce instructional material. The firearms they produce in the course of those instructional pieces are apparently enough to qualify them as manufacturers in this very narrow interpretation. Likewise, custom gunsmiths' samples are also apparently under scrutiny.

Consequently, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association and others are looking for clarification of a single question: at what point does gunsmithing become manufacturing?

BATF regulations appear to offer a solid definition of manufacturing. It would appear, says experts, that a new, and considerably narrower definition is being used against Crow. A definition that has the potential to make virtually any change, from changing parts inside the lockworks to re-barreling or changing firearm calibers enough to constitute manufacturing. Enough, for example, to make any gunsmith's show samples or writers' samples "manufactured" and subject to taxes and penalties.

Should that become the new working definition for ATF and IRS enforcement agents, gunsmiths we've contacted the effect would be immediate and would bankrupt what they consider "one of America's remaining cottage industries."

Hamilton Bowen, of Bowen Custom Arms in Louisville, Tennessee, is a longtime gunsmith and member of the prestigious gunsmiths' guilds. He feels the narrow definition "won't stick" should it come to a fight. He also says the fight itself might be sufficient to put gunsmiths out of business.

"We might win the fight," Bowen said, "but the loss of business along
with the associated legal fees for the fight would more than put most of
us out of business."

"If the ATF came in and told me that I was liable for federal excise taxes and penalties for all the years I've been in business, I'd just hand them the keys and head to the unemployment office," he said. "ATF is charged with writing regulations to enforce Congressional statutes. They have the ability to clarify statutes, but this one's anything but clear."

San Antonio, Texas gunsmith Alex Hamilton agrees. "I'm essentially a sole proprietor," he says, "if the ATF came in here and started an in-depth investigation, I couldn't work for a couple of reasons. First, I'd be afraid not to be with them the whole time they were here. Secondly, the anxiety their even being here would cause would keep me from doing my job anyway."

The issue isn't licensure; manufacturing licenses are relatively inexpensive, although they add another layer of paperwork and compliance to a small business group that says it already spends a disproportionate amount of working time on compliance paperwork. A retroactivity tax liability could spell significant enough economic damage to shut most gunsmiths down.

Off the record, industry officials say they're starting to receive reports of other gunsmiths being "visited" by BATF officers. Despite those unconfirmed reports, they remain confident the situation can be clarified and a confrontation avoided.

That might be the equivalent of whistling in a graveyard.

Battles between the firearms industry and the BATF have historically been bitter, protracted affairs. Passage of recently-introduced legislation giving gunsmiths a 50-firearm annual tax exemption passed late in the prior Congressional session. The battle to get the legislation introduced, however, took 15 years. It still lacked the support to win the retroactivity gunsmiths had hoped for.

Although they unwilling to say so on the record, some gunsmiths feel the BATF may be getting a little "payback" for the passage of legislation they so vehemently opposed.

In the meantime, the National Rifle Association is attempting to mediate what may have the potential to blossom from a skirmish into a bitter war.

Eric Schwartz, clerk to the NRA's Chief Legislative Counsel, told The Outdoor Wire, "we believe there are inconsistencies by ATF and the IRS that make it difficult, if not impossible, for a law-abiding gunsmith to practice their trade."

"We'd like to see, if necessary, steps taken to address any inconsistencies and make it crystal-clear what acts are manufacturing acts and which are gunsmithing acts so our members can ply their trade in a law-abiding manner."

That might be easier said than done.

One obstacle in the way of "crystal clarity" is a multitude of statutes, regulatory language and opinions; many of which appear to contradict each other. Another; the simple fact that the question lies squarely at an intersection of IRS and BATF regulatory and enforcement areas.
From the Outdoor Wire


Both agencies have reputations as ferocious opponents to any perceived weakening of their enforcement powers.

The Federal Excise Tax itself may prove to be a bone of litigation should a gunsmith be deemed to be a manufacturer. As observers have pointed out, a Federal Excise Tax on the firearm had already been paid - by the original manufacturer.

Deeming a firearm to have been "manufactured" in the course of customization and subject to FET appears to be a BATF attempt at "double dipping" the firearms industry.

Further, in customization and gunsmithing, labor is the major cost. The gunsmith would have already paid federal income tax on that labor.
Again, this creates an apparent attempt at double-taxation.

And what about record keeping? For income tax purposes, businesses are required to maintain their records for a clearly-defined period. BATF has implied no statute of limitations on the potential FET liability for gunsmiths that find themselves declared manufacturers. Consequently, there would be a requirement that records be kept in perpetuity. That creates what legal experts call a "practical impossibility" - a situation where one federal agency creates a requirement that's "practically impossible" to satisfy. Small businesses normally operate in small spaces, i.e., tax records outside the IRS maintenance requirements are routinely destroyed as each year's taxes are filed.

Whether the BATF visit to Competitive Edge was a single agent operating under a personal interpretation of regulations or the first shot in another war between the firearms industry and the BATF is, at this point, irrelevant.

If this is, as I expect, a true rendition of the facts, we have one more example of the BATF (or whatever they call themselves this week) working overtime to plague the firearms industry with egregious penalties imposed by ex post facto laws.

I'm too disheartened to comment now. Please write your own rant, I'll probably agree with most of what you say and a good portion of what you think, as long as it's something along the lines of "Is there no way to curb the predation of these infidels against honest men?"

2005 Croc Match: Yong Lee - The Doors

The Crazy Croc Banzaii Ballistic Match ("You got Bullets?") is probably the biggest the biggest IPSC-style high-round-count Pistol Match in the World. For sure, it's the biggest in America.

In the 2005 match, SWMBO shot pictures instead of shooting the match. I know she was disappointed at not being able to compete, but in the process she shot what may be World-Class photos and videos of a truly unique pistol match.

This is the first of a planned series of easy-to-access (if you have a high-speed internet connection) videos of that match.

The match was held during Labor Day weekend, September, 2005. This year (2006) it is again scheduled for Labor Day weekend. The match consists (at last count) of eight stages with approximately 50 rounds per stage ... total match round count of over 450 rounds! Yes, there are 60+ round stages in the match!

To sign up for the 2006 match, go to www.columbia-cascade.org and look under "Special Matches". (More detailed information to be added 'later'.)

To see what it takes to win a stage, see the video presentation below.

Stage 5: "The Doors".
Scenario: shoot a lot, really fast!

guns-in-parking-lots bill: Florida SB206

WPEC NEWS 12 - The 1•2 Turn To

After two hours of surfing the net, I've found NO other reference which suggests progress in Florida's Senate Bill 206 which would not only allow employes to keep firearms in their cars at their workplace, but would also allow prosecution of employers who forbid this expression of the Second Amendment.

Still, the Channel 12 CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach, Florida has announced that the bill did "inch (sic) forward today."

The fact that I was unable to find supporting news releases tonight MAY be because the news was so recently released. Or it may be that the Main Stream Media (MSM) didn't usually consider it a news-worthy item. Or, to exercise my Geekish Paranoia-bone, it may be that the news is being suppressed, or Channel 12 may have got it wrong and it's all a cruel hoax designed solely to build my RKBA hopes up only to crush my spirits in the morning.

Here's the full text of the announcement:

Compromise on Weapons Bill
Written By : Melissa Dart
April 5, 2006 - 12:02AM

A bill to let gun owners bring their guns to work and keep them locked in their cars inch forward today.

It took six tries for lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee to move the bill past its first committee.

In the end, they agreed gun owners can keep their weapons locked in their cars at work, unless businesses show a compelling safety concern to ban the practice.

Companies that might be exempted would include security outfits and hazardous waste companies.

Companies that might be exempted would include security outfits and hazardous waste companies.

The law could also would allow companies to ban employees from bringing a weapon who have a history of violence or problems with the company and businesses also wouldn't be responsible for any crimes the individuals committed with the guns.

The National Rifle Association's Marion Hammer says she can live with the new bill.

The handgun-toting grandmother told legislators that voters' gun rights don't end when they drive into parkinglots.

On the other hand business representatives maintain property owners have the
right to set the rules for those entering their turf.

I made my prediction on February 9, 2006, that this bill was a pipe dream. I expected (in my usual droll, optimistic manner) that this was a foregone conclusion. The NRA is lacking in leadership, they're indulging in wishful thinking when they think they can take on major corporate employers (eg: ConocoPhillips) and win, and that the best they could hope for was a 'good fight' and they might elicit some (insufficient) support from new Supremes Roberts and Phillips. My expectation was that the NRA was forcing a fight they knew they couldn't win, but were expecting this battle to be a precursor to something bigger -- such as a challenge to previous court decisions restricting RKBA such as Emerson and Silviera and even Miller et al.

This may be considered 'progress' by those of us who consider RKBA rights should take precedence over property rights. I count myself among them, and for good cause: Luby's, a school assault where a teacher ran out to his car and grabbed his gun to help disarm the murderer (I'll look up the reference later and include the URL in an update), and any wolf-among-sheep reference you can think of. But the most important thing is that there is, in my personal opinion, no reason why your boss should decide (a) when you should have access to a defensive firearm, and (b) whether you should be able to put your range gear in your car in the morning, so you can run out to the range and practice after work.

Your friends and co-workers may freak out if you show up open-carrying, and I don't blame them that much. They don't know you well enough to trust that you aren't about to go postal on them. Still, when AOL (for example) fires employees because they take off their carry-gun when they get to the parking lot and leave it in the car, it seems as if paranoia has become the new ruler of your life in America.

It happens. It isn't right, unless you're a firm believer that everyone who has a firearm is a massacre just waiting to happen. Still, it's The Golden Rule: "He Who Has the Gold, Makes The Rules."

I still don't believe that it may become the law of the land that employers are constrained from preventing employees keeping guns in their cars, but I would be delighted if it happens. In this time of terrorist strikes and "Hate America" thinking, that two-minute run to your car could conceivably be the difference between life and death for dozens of innocents when someone breaks the existing laws and starts shooting up your workplace.

Does this sound paranoid? Perhaps, but it HAS happened and continues to happen from time to time.

While honest citizens are prevented by current law from defending themselves, criminals are, by definition, not constrained by law.

SCHOOLS:
Schools are a special case. We all want to protect our children, and it seem so reasonable to expect that if we pass laws against allowing people to carry guns on school grounds, it ought to protect the children.

At least, it seem that was as long as we assumed that people were universally civilized. Until Columbine, and Jonesboro, and Red Lake, and Beslan.

Laws don't protect schools, and they don't protect children. We wish it were otherwise, but our national and global experience proves that wishful thinking doesn't protect anybody.


John Lott believes, for example, that teachers should be allowed to be armed. Why? Think "Columbine". Think about the previous paragraphs.

Workplaces ... are different. And yet the same. We never know what is going to happen, or where it is going to happen. All we know is that the worst COULD happen, at the worst possible place and time

And so the Florida is placed in the uncomfortable position of once again being he frontiersman, who takes the arrow for the rest of us while the legislature has many other concerns with which to deal.

We wish them good luck.

Travis Tomasie - The Perfect Reload

Why must all of my heroes be either younger than I am, or dead?

Answer: because I'm so old.
Here's a video (shockwave flash) of my IPSC hero demonstrating how to reload your pistol.



Go ahead, click on the "play" arrow. You'll be amazed.

You can also download it for yourself, here. It's a 3.53MB mpg file, but you can keep it and play it over and over, in full-screen mode if you like. With sound.

My apologies for not crediting the video. It has been copied and republished so many times, I've lost track of where I found it.

More about Nebraska Shall Issue Law

Are you as amazed as I am that both Kansas and Nebraska passed Right To Carry laws within one week of each other? It's even more incredible considering the stiff resistance that citizens of both states faced, and the many years of battle needed to impose their will on reluctant politicians.

In a way, it makes it more difficult for writers to give as much attention to the process and results of each state's success, when it's such a target-rich environment this week. We're almost forced to focus on one or the other story, if only because of the dearth of available pajama time for bloggers. I've decided to talk about Nebraska, which is the newest champion of the RKBA movement. Besides, I've already written about it yesterday.

I've just spent an hour searching the internet for news about the Nebraska bill LB 454, and you probably aren't surprised to hear that the Main Stream Media -- even the Main Stream Internet News -- has ignored the topic in favor of pediphile teachers and political demonstrations.

But Blogistan has the news, and the answers that a lot of Second Amendment Afficianados are looking for.

THE LAW:
Let's look at the actual bill, Nebraska LB 454.
(Legislative Bill 454, available as a 15-page PDF file)

This was initially sponsored by State Senator Jeanne Combs, and the copy of the bill states that the First Reading was January 13, 2005. The version that I'm looking at was posted by the State of Nebraska in May of 2005, and I'm assuming that this is the version which was passed. (If I later find I'm wrong, I'll post corrections as necessary and note it on at UPDATE at the bottom of the page.)

The first question everybody asks is: "Is this a Shall Issue law?" The answer is a resounding YES!

The Concealed Handgun Permit Act (CHPA) is specific to handguns, and does not address carrying concealed weapons in general. It costs $100, is issued by county sheriffs (who get half of the fee, the other half goes to the state for their processing fees and the remainder, if any, goes to the General Fund) and is valid for a period of five years. Renewal fee is $50.

The applicant must complete an application form, provide two sets of fingerprints, be an American citizen and adult resident of Nebraska, be a non-felon, and present an original Certificate of Training.

The Sheriff has five days to issue the permit if all requirements are fulfilled, including a Criminal History record check from the FBI through the Nebraska State Patrol. This is not necessary during renewal of the permit. (Denial of permit can be appealed through the District Court of that county.)

The Nebraska State Patrol is also responsible for defining the minimum standards of training, based on guidelines established in the CHPA.

Incidentely, as cited in my earlier article:

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.

There are the usual precautions which we find in many such laws: No felons, etc. A couple of interesting clauses include "no history of violence" and the applicant must "not habitually be in an intoxicated or drugged condition".

There is no definition of the terminology, so one wonders what constitutes a "history of violence". Is this a subjective evaluation by the issuing Sheriff?

A permit holder must have in his possession both the permit and a drivers license (or some other ID, such as a military ID card) when carrying a handgun.

Moving into the vernacular:

Cops can take your gun away while they're talking to you. If you're carrying, you have to tell them. They have to give your gun back, except (for example) if they send you to the hospital and THEN they have to give you a receipt. Whether you get it back later depends on the circumstances.

There are places where a permit holder is not allowed to carry: jails and police stations, court buildings, polling places, bars, schools (school grounds, school busses, school activiies, etc.), athletic events, places of worship, emergency rooms, banks, political rallys, or " ...places or premises which have prohibited permit holders from carrying ... ". This last requires that the owner "has posted conspicuous notice" that handguns are not permitted, or has asked the permit holder to remove the handgun from the premises.

If you're a Domino's Driver, your boss can forbid you to carry in the deliver van.

You can't carry in a bar, while you're drinking (where-ever), or until you've completely sobered up again.

If you shoot somebody, you have to fill out a form or they'll throw you in the slammer and take your permit away from you.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RIGHT-TO-CARRY:
While researching this article, I found an excellent summary from a Nebraska Gun Club under the title "Why Does Nebraska Need A Right-To-Carry." You can read it here, though you'll have to scroll down a page.


THE CIRCUMSTANCES:
The Free Republic site posted an excellent article from the Lincoln Journal Star (January 14, 2006: Nate Jenkins) which summarized some of the opposition.

Big Cities might impose more stringent restrictions:

“If we want to do concealed weapons … let’s make sure the legislation communicates very clearly how we want the rest of the state to address concealed weapons,” said Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk.

Confusion currently exists about whether the bill would force cities to abide by the proposed law, because a state statute now allows cities to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons. Also, some city officials say they want to be able to set their own restrictions on concealed guns.

Sen. DiAnna Schimek argued that the confusion created “a huge concern” and that more public hearings should be held so city officials could provide input.

Why would anyone need to carry "concealed" in Nebraska?

The Nebraska State Patrol would be charged with devising training standards for safety courses that Combs said could last between one and three days, per session. Some state law enforcement agencies, including the State Patrol, have taken a neutral stance on the bill.

But at least one, the Police Officers Association of Nebraska, has opposed conceal-carry bills in the past.

“A person right now can legally carry a weapon,” as long as it is openly displayed, such as in a car seat or holster attached to a belt, said Lt. Mike Swain of the North Platte Police Department, president of the group.

“What are the benefits of having a gun nobody can see?”

Somebody openly displaying a gun is less likely to be attacked than one who conceals a weapon, he argued. Under current state law, weapons are considered illegally concealed if they are not where officers can view them but are accessible to their owners, according to Capt. Rhonda Lahm of the Nebraska State Patrol.

Anyone who truly believes that "open carry" is a safe, sane way to carry a defensive weapon should talk to Jason, the author of the blospot Fish Or Man. This is a blogger who was arrested in 2004 for carrying a loaded weapon openly in his car. When he was stopped for a traffic offense in his home state of Washington, the traffic cop became nervous when he spotted the loaded weapon. A series of escalating confrontations resulted in arrest, confiscation and trial. Over a year later, many tears from his poor wife and thousands of dollars poorer (I still don't know if he got his pistol back), Jason finally won MOST of his appeals.

It's not clear to me even yet if all the charges against Jason have been resolved, but one thing IS clear: open carry may help you defend yourself against predatory criminals, but it won't protect you against predatory cops.

If you open carry and have an encounter with the police, chances are good that they will automatically assume that you are 'up to no good' and the situation will immediately turn confrontational. If you insist upon your right to open-carry, expect escalation and expect that you will be arrested adn charged with (if nothing better comes to mind) "resisting arrest".

By the way, the link (above) is to the origina blogpost written on her husband's blogsite by Jason's wife, the day after her husband was arrested. The title is "I Am Finished". It will break your heart to read it. It is a sad, tearful story.

Washington State will issue you a "right to carry" permit. Jason just didn't see any reason why he should give money to the State, an have his name entered on a list of "people who have guns", when the Second Amendment (and Washington State Law) allowed him to carry "openly".

He now understands why. It's not an easy story to read; or to follow, if you have the time to track through the many episodes of arrest, imprisonment, bail, hearings, lawyers fees, trials and decisions on the various charges brought against him. But it certainly provides and excellent response to the question “What are the benefits of having a gun nobody can see?”

Answer: it provides protection against both law-breakers and law-enforcement.

Opinions:
Some time before LB 454 was passed, The Omaha City Weekly published an opinion article which contained all of the predictable cavaets. If you're interested, you should go read the whole thing. It's a regurgistation of all the fearful justification to deny honest citizens their right to defend themselves.

There are a few notable sound bites:

An armed society is a polite society, after all. Or so we’re told

Not everyone agrees with Combs’ view of concealed handguns. Nebraska City Police Chief Bill Muldoon raised concerns that family members are more likely than intruders to be harmed by guns in the home. He also was concerned that the additional gun-safety training LB 454 would require the State Patrol to perform for permit applicants would overburden an already-taxed State Patrol system.

Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha also opposes LB 454. In a style all his own, Chambers has proposed an amendment to LB 454 that would punish persons who violate the provisions of their concealed-carry license by having them taken into custody where their “trigger finger shall be shot off by Nebraska State Senator Jeanne M. Combs using a pistol of her choice ... without the benefit of any type of anesthesia other than flavored malt liquor.”

Seriously, that’s the amendment on the floor of the Unicameral. Further debate would be required on the amount of malt liquor that could be used, or the flavors that would be permissible under Chambers’ proposal.

Muldoon is a politicop parroting the old "43% more likely" argument which has long been discredited.

Chambers is a politician and an idiot (but then, I repeat myself).

And ...

Any discussion about gun control legislation really should start with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “[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.”

Keep in mind, at the time the Second Amendment was enacted, the United States had a very small standing army. The defense of the nation was left to militias, self-organized groups of men who assembled when the need arose. But clear within the language of the Second Amendment is the concept of a “well regulated militia,” meaning that the ability to wield a firearm had to be subject to the rules of the government.

The author of that article brings up the "history of violence" and "habitually ... drunken" issues, which reflects well on his careful reading of the bill. He recognizes that these are controversial points.

Unfortunately, he finishes with:

Really, it comes down to this question. Who are you more afraid of, the criminal who uses a gun to take your money, or the guy in the car next to you who has been pushed to the limit and uses you to take out his frustration against the world? Which of those two threats do you think is more likely to touch your life?

Guns do many things, and that includes escalating a confrontation into a life and death situation. It is an inescapable fact that in Europe, private gun ownership is a tiny fraction of what it is in the United States, and yet the violent crime rate in Europe (as well as the amount of accidental gun deaths) is far less than in the United States.

An armed society may be a polite society, but that is because it is a frightened society. I think there’s enough fear in this world. I believe that the marginal benefit of being able to outdraw a criminal in a shootout is overshadowed by the risk of each day-to-day confrontation escalating into a shooting. Permitting private citizens to carry concealed handguns is either a failure of our society to provide basic security or a pandering to the baser Darwinian survival instincts of people. For all our sakes, let’s pray LB 454 is the latter.

Fortunately, there are less fearful heads than his in Nebraska. Not everyone has so little confidence in the essential good sense of "people". Again, it's to his credit that he recognizes "the failure of our society to provide basic security", but he doesn't envision any better solution to the problem of crime and violence but that a "frightened society" should stand around like cattle waiting for the slaughterhouse-man.

If he thinks that the police are going to prevent violence, he would be better off hoping that the law is changes so that the Domino's Pizza Driver can carry 'on the job'. They have a much better response time.

TWO MORE STATES TO GO:
Illinois and Wisconsin still don't have concealed carry laws.

The Wisconsin "Legislatie Reference Bureau" posted an article about attempts to enter a concealed carry in Wisconson.

In 2003, SB 214 was passed by the State Legislature and subsequently vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle in early November, 2003. I don't know the current status of this movement, but the PDF article notes that "Missouri's legislature overrode his (Governor Bob Holden) veto in September 2003 making making Missouri the 45th state to legalize the carrying of a concealed weapon."

Wisconsin is on track, and not really far behind schedule. It may even be inevitable that Wisconsin will pass RKBA legislation in the near future.

There's still hope for Illinois.

I hope to bring you good news of these two final 'hold-out" states in the near future.

Nebraska Joins RKBA America!

JournalStar.com

After ten years of effort, Nebraska citizens finally impose their will over that of recalcitrant politicians and "Municipality Liberals" ... a "Right to Carry" bill has been passed, and it will soon be legal to carry a concealed weapon in the Great State of Nebraska!

Coming only a week after Kansas passed a similar law which recognizes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Nebraska law is perhaps not all that Nebraskans would want. But it opens the door to individual freedoms, and that's worth a decade of struggle.

Here's the full text of the Lincoln, Nebraska "Journal Star" article:

Concealed-carry adopted
By NATE JENKINS / Lincoln Journal Star

Next year, roughly 20,000 Nebraskans may trade their pepper spray and knives for Rugers and live ammo. Ending a 10-year effort, the Legislature on Thursday passed a law giving law-abiding Nebraskans the right to carry concealed handguns.

“It’s been a long fight,” said Sen. Jeanne Combs of Milligan.

Combs, a shoot-from-the-hip speaker and member of the National Rifle Association who led the fight for the bill, stared at the big board on the floor of the Legislature as votes to break a filibuster piled up.

When the tally hit 33, it was clear Nebraska would soon change its status as one of just a few states that prohibit concealed guns.

“I think it gives the people who’ve been victims of crime at least an alternative,” she said later.

The bill goes to Gov. Dave Heineman, who has said he would sign it.

Senators who have opposed the legislation fought it until the final vote, forcing the filibuster-breaker.

“There is no justification for it which would be considered rational,” said Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha. “Nebraska is not engulfed in a crime wave.”

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.


Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney questioned why the “safest people in the safest place on Earth” — Nebraska — need to carry concealed guns.

Supporters were mostly quiet, content to let opponents take their last shots at the bill and allow Combs to answer their questions.

She gave varying answers to a question that especially interested senators and is expected to interest city leaders as the law’s January start date approaches: Will it prevent cities from passing their own ordinances banning concealed handguns?

“As I understand the bill, it is preemptive” and would prohibit cities from overriding state law, Combs said, answering a question from Chambers.

Earlier this month, Combs suggested it may not prevent cities from banning concealed guns.

After the vote Thursday, Combs said she was “not an attorney” and wasn’t sure what the effect of the law will be in cities across the state.

“It remains to be seen,” she said. “My intent was not to have a checkerboard of laws.”

Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln pointed out an apparent discrepancy between what Combs told Chambers and what the bill seems to spell out.

“I think it says right here in your own bill that indeed they have that authority” to pass their own anti-conceal-carry laws and override state law, Schimek said.

None of the 38 states with similar legislation allow cities to opt out of state law, said Keith Wood, an NRA lobbyist who has pushed for this bill and is familiar with conceal-carry bills.

But Nebraska’s bill is different, he has said, because he believes it does allow cities to ban concealed weapons.

Lincoln Mayor Coleen Seng and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey wrote letters to the Legislature last month expressing opposition to the bill.

Lincoln officials are considering their next move, said Seng aide Rick Hoppe.

“The mayor wants to take time to review the city’s options before making a decision,” he said.

Without widespread city bans, the State Patrol has estimated 19,500 Nebraskans would apply for permits next year, when the law goes into effect. And about 5,000 would apply annually after that.

Applicants will have to pass background checks and meet other criteria to obtain the $100 permits, which will have to be renewed every five years.

Earlier news reports suggests that "Preemption" -- legally restricting the ability of individual municipalities to pass more restrictive laws than the rights granted by the state -- may have been a significant stumbling block to passage of this law. The final text of the bill is not yet available on the internet, so this question remains unanswered. However, there are passages in the Nebraska Constitution which might seem to support preemption.

For example, this passage from Gunscribe (and cited in an earlier article):

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Source:
Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (1875);
Amended 1988, Initiative Measure No. 403

The political opposition to passage of this bill was evident even after passage of the bill, as the Journal Star reporting demonstrates:

“There is no justification for it which would be considered rational,” said Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha. “Nebraska is not engulfed in a crime wave.”

The Nebraska State Patrol did not take a stance on the bill. The Police Officers Association of Nebraska opposes the measure.

Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney questioned why the “safest people in the safest place on Earth” — Nebraska — need to carry concealed guns.

Still, this is a significant advance in the 2nd Amendment Movement, and one which reduces the right-to-carry ratio from 47-to-3 to 48-to-2.

Only Illinois and Wisconsin have yet to pass such self-defense legislation.

As of this writing, the passage of this bill has not yet been mentioned by the Main Stream Media.

However, Nebraska citizens are virtually dancing in the streets over this acknowledgement of their civil rights.

The CCW Nebraska Forum members are jubilant, yet restrained as they attempt to sort out the implications of the bill as enacted into law.

As Forum Member JoeMerchant24 states:

We did it!

---

FINAL READING:

Aye 33

Nay 12

NV 3

We win! We win! Thank God almighty we win at last!

Welcome to a Blue State!

However, CMZNEB is more restrained, as he cautions:

Nobody is clear on the preemption. Not even the Legislators who just passed the bill.

With only Illinois and Wisconsin left......... I wish you guys the best of luck. Keep pushing your elected officials, keep it positive, and you will succeed.

And member jednp cautions:

Municipalities will have the right to ban it. I live in Omaha and have been told that they will keep their current ban in effect, and change their law any if needed to keep current. Some city council members are going to sponsor a bill to allow it in Omaha, but I was told it will take a strong 5 person vote because the mayor will veto it, and lots of organizations in the city are against it. Only hope Omaha has, or any other city which bans it is to get the law ammended in the next year or so to make it so municipalities cannot ban it.

Questions, yes. The problem with 'early returns' is that the nigling details remain to be resolved. It's perhaps unwise to accept a new law as the answer to all of your dreams. When you turn your back on a problem, remember where it's going to bite you.

But still, in the words of malkore:

today is a good day.

(H/T: John Hurd, of "The Unofficial IPSC List")

Norm and the White Tape

At a recent IPSC match, Oregon's newest Master Open Class shooter gets a proper razzing from his friends.