Revving it up for the USPSA Club Match

I've got a cold, and have missed a couple days of work. (I'm hoping that, with the beneficial effects of a 24-hour over-the-counter antihistamine, I can get back to 'normal' Geeking tomorrow.)

While I fret because I'm missing work days, I'm even more disappointed that I haven't felt much like tackling Job One!

That would be catching up on ammunition reloading with my newly refurbished Dillon XL650.

I actually re-assembled the press Sunday evening, but ran out of energy to start loading. Monday, still lethargic. In fact, I had started coughing Monday afternoon at the office, and was so sick that night that I didn't do a thing.

Tuesday I dragged myself out to the garage and loaded 'almost 100 rounds' of .38 Super. It was surprisingly easy, and while I still had to spend some time re-tuning the connection between the case feeder and the press, my only slow-down was that I am loading a mixed bag of .38 Super and .38 Super Comp.

Ask the man who owns one: to load Super Comp, you need to replace the 9mm/Super shellplate with the .223 shellplate. I didn't, so the Comp brass tended to not stay in place when the shellplate rotated from Station 1 (decap/size) to Station 2 (prime/load powder). The few minor problems I experienced slowed me down and frustrated me sufficiently that I quit after about 15 minutes. But at least I was reassured that the improvement gained in reliability was well worth the realoading time lost by shipping the press back to the factory.

My health was improved enough that I got about 3 hours sleep that night (as opposed to zero hours sleep the night before), so today (Wednesday) I spent an incredible 35 minutes loading mixed .38 ammunition.

The delays associated with loading Comp brass on the wrong shellplate were slightly exasperating, and this was when I discovered that I hadn't aligned the Case Feed correctly. But at the end I had 400 loaded rounds complete, only 4 of which were discarded because of no primer having been inserted. (I haven't discovered why this happened, but again I was forcing myself to go slow while I re-learned how to use a press that actually works correctly, so I may have been distracted.)

I ran out of steam before I loaded the last of my batch of mixed brass, there are probably no more than 50 rounds left. I'll reload them tomorrow (Thursday) and then load up another 400 rounds using brand new Winchester .38 Super brass. That should require less than an hour, after I've recharged some primer feed tubes with Winchester primers.

Friday night I'll take the loaded ammo to SWMBO, and we'll inspect, box and mark the (already gauged) cases.

Between this new reload batch, and the ammo we already have, we should have plenty of ammunition for both of us to shoot the ARPC Club Match on Saturday. We need this range time; both of us have been AWOL from local matches for most of the past six months.

About the .38 SUPER vs SUPER COMP brass:
The STI race gun I'm using has an AFTEC extractor installed. With both springs installed, it extracts both the rimless Super Comp and the rimmed Comp brass with equal alacrity. Also, the barrel is old and the chamber is relatively loose; ammunition which doesn't seat in my Dillon Case Gauge still chambers easily in all but the most extreme circumstances.

On the other hand, the STI race gun that SWMBO is using has a standard-design STI extractor, and will not reliably extract Super Comp brass. Also, the chamber fits the case dimensions as per specifications, and will not chamber the same brass which feeds reliably in the other STI.

Consequently, we have to make two inspection passes:

First, we case-gauge all of the ammunition. Everything that passes goes into SWMBO's ammo box; everything that is 'fat' goes into my ammo box.

In the first inspection of the 400 loaded rounds, less than 100 rounds went to her ammo box.

Then we check the headstamp on SWMBO's ammunition. Anything that suggests it is Super Comp (including AP ammunition) moves over to the Geek ammo box.

I haven't made this test yet, so I don't know how many rounds will be available for her to shoot on Saturday, but one thing is sure: we don't have enough.

(As a rule of thumb, I figure it will require a minimum of 150 rounds to get through any Club Match in this Section. Reshoots can increase the requirement by up to 20%, so we feel marginally comfortable with 200 rounds, preferably 300 rounds for each pistol at a single Club Match.)

About the Super Comp Gunsmithing Situation:
However, the STI I'm using is currently being worked on by Rob Shepherd of Major Nyne Guns, a local gunsmith (and USPSA GM Competitor). I've had problems with the C-More Scope Mount lately so I sent the pistol to him last month to fix the problems with the mount. Also, re-sight the gun after the mount is properly fixed in place, and to do a general inspection and detail cleaning in preparation for the 2008 Competitive Season.

I told him there was "no hurry, as long as the pistol was available to shoot in the next month's ARPC match".

In Gunsmith Terms, this means "MAJOR EMERGENCY! I NEED THIS BACK IMMEDIATELY!"

In correspondence last week, Rob informed me that (a) the scope mount was cracked and (b) the scope-mount screw holes were 'elongated', and did I want a new scope mount? Also, (c) the guide rod was missing, and did I want to supply my own replacement or use one that he had in stock?

Later Rob discovered that the holes only seemed to be elongated, because a couple of the mounting screws had been replaced with screws of the 'wrong diameter'. This was my fault; I'm not at all good with Things Mechanical, and this is the reason why I sent my firearms to a qualified gunsmith rather than work on them myself. If there's any way to screw it up (pun almost unintended), I'll screw it up wrong. So the original scope mount may stay on the gun, unless Rob determines that the crack in the mount (from the rear mounting screw to the rear of the mount) may, in his judgment, cause later problems.

As for the missing guide rod, I have NO IDEA how that was lost. Yes, it was a screw-in guide rod and yes, the base of the guide rod is still in the gun. I told Rob to put it together with his guide rod and if I could find my spare between then and the delivery of the pistol, I would replace it with mine.

I cannot conceive of the pistol functioning without a guide rod, but it must have, somehow, at the February club match in Dundee ... for the one stage I shot it in before changing to SWMBO's pistol.

So, if Rob can get the Geek STI ready for delivery by this weekend, we will probably have plenty of ammunition for SWMBO and I each to shoot with our own pistols.

If not, if I can get enough (400 rounds) .38 Super ammunition in SWMBO's ammo box by the weekend, we'll share a gun.

And if that doesn't work out, SWMBO will shoot 'her' pistol, and I'll shoot the GeekGun ... the 10mm STI Edge.

That pistol runs perfectly, and I have plenty of ammunition loaded for it.

Of course, I can't see the iron sights well enough to shoot it accurately, consistently, and quickly, which is why I went to The Dark Side in 2003.

But at least we'll both get to shoot, and that's the main thing.

Besides, if I shoot the GeekGun, that ol' thang flings 10mm brass so far that it's easy to pick up brass. My 10mm brass is easily distinguishable from all other brass, in that it can be found 10 meters from the firing point.

We usually just start looking for it on the Frontage Road, and work our way in from there.

If you're at the April 2008 ARPC club match, come by and say howdy. Feel free to laugh at me; I'm a Geek, I've become accustomed to it.

Then I'll post videos of your worst stage on You Tube.

Geeks do that.

Syd Retires?

Syd, at Front Sight, Press (also www.snubnose.info) announced this week that he plans to "... take a break, perhaps forever, but at least for a while...".

It's not clear whether this is effective immediately, or he plans to just let blogging 'taper off', or what.

Still, it's disheartening for those of us who have read him regularly for the past 10 years, and rely on him for not only news and technical notes regarding the 1911, but also a roundup of pistol-related news.

Syd has always been hanging-10 on the wave of issues which are important to us, and I have stolen shamelessly from him over the years. I'm happy to say that he has returned the favor from time to time, by linking (via his trademark TinyURL links) to a few articles which I have written. I'm gratified by his support, and have been pleased when the articles he surveyed have been among the best-written and most important during the week.

But it is not about me. Syd has served as a mentor by example of writing excellence, and his writing has channeled my thoughts into currents which my mind would never have taken me. I expect that others who read his blog regularly found this to be so for them, as well.

Soon we will be bereft of a fresh perspective, a central clearing-house of 2nd amendment thought, and a resource for the articles which we would have missed if not for his dedication.

Syd, I do hope that you soon tire of the spare time you avail of yourself, and return to the 6-hour Saturdays in which you deliver your wisdom.

Geez! First Heston dies, and next Syd retires?

Quick, hand me the Duct Tape!

Industrial Laser Solutions

Industrial Laser Solutions Articles, Fighting crime with laser engraving

While researching background on Micro-Serialization of ammunition, with particular reference to California's "Gun Crime Identification Act of 2007", I found the Industrial Laser Solutions article titled "Fighting Crime with Laser Engraving".

While I suggested that this was the "sole-source provider" of this technology, I cannot in good faith confirm that this is so. (A superficial, preliminary analysis shows no obvious relationship with Industrial Laser Solutions per se, but I have not and probably will not search for connections beyond those demonstrated in the following.)

I can point you to the article, and quote the source, so that you may judge for yourself the confidence of the technical (and otherwise) information provided there. This article, while undated, has obviously been written after the September 10, 2007 vote by the California Assembly and prior to the October 13, 2007 signing of the bill by the California Governornator:

Fighting Crime with Laser Engraving

Sacramento, CA-On September 10 the California Assembly passed legislation that is expected to provide police with an important tool in solving gun crimes and apprehending armed criminals-the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 (AB 1471). The California Senate approved the measure on September 6. AB 1471 requires that all new models of semiautomatic handguns are microstamped with their make, model, and serial number.

Back scatter scanning electron image of the primary firing pin, secondary breach face mark.

Microstamping uses UV lasers to engrave microscopic characters onto a gun’s firing pin and other internal surfaces. These characters transfer onto the cartridge casing when the handgun is fired. In instances of drive-by shootings, for example, where the only evidence at the crime scene may be a spent cartridge case, law enforcement could quickly obtain a critical lead.

Cartridge primer microstamp.

Click here to enlarge image

Todd Lizotte, the Londonderry, NH-based inventor of microstamping, believes the technology has the potential to target those who illegally traffic firearms by providing immediate identification of a firearm the first time it is used in a crime, which has been identified by law enforcement as a major benefit. The “time to crime”-the time it takes from the time the firearm is first sold to when it is “identified” as used in a crime-is between 1 to 12 years, notes Lizotte. “By allowing law enforcement to identify the firearm without having to actually recover it,” Lizotte explains, “means they have a better opportunity to understand its history from the first point of sale. Current ballistic or firearm identification can not take place until the firearm is recovered.” In Los Angeles it has been estimated that nearly 50% of gun-related crimes are unsolved, where the only evidence is cartridge casings.

In fighting crime, law enforcement agencies employ techniques such as “link analysis” and “social networking,” which rely on identifying leads to connect people to events. By identifying through microstamping the first person who purchased the firearm, law enforcement can quickly assess if they are part of the criminal social network or, in the case of a stolen firearm, if the firearm was stolen by a known theft ring within the area. As for honest firearm owners, everything remains the same. No new bureaucracy is introduced; the same trace system is employed and all the information stays at the firearm manufacturer’s facility.

[NOTES: (1) The microstamping capability of an individual firearm is easily obliterated; (2) assuming that firearms are most frequently acquired by criminals via theft immediately breaks the chain of possession; (3) the cost of the firearm to the 'honest firearms owners' is increased; (4) to say that 'no new bureaucracy is introduced' is disingenuous; (5) there is implied a bureaucratic and administrative burdon on the 'firearm manufacturer'.

In response to arguments that microstamping would add significant cost to the manufacture of a handgun, Lizotte has agreed to make the technology available to the firearms industry royalty-free (the patented portion of the technology is held by ID Dynamics, Seattle, WA).

[Note: the 'technology' may be made available 'royalty free', but the equipment and administrative requirements will greatly add to the cost of manufacture! It also adds to the administrative costs of the wholesaler and the retailer.]

A GOOGLE search on ID DYNAMICS yields this primary reference, which seems innocent enough (a U.K. company company offering "Infrared Surveying for Predictive Maintenance Programs" ... how innocent can you get?

However, there were several other hits when you dig down past the first page:

Officer.com -

Microstamping technology, invented and patented by Todd Lizotte and presently owned by a company he founded called NanoMark, a division of ID Dynamics of Seattle, Washington, recently completed a series of tests of the microstamping process that the company says validates the new technology.

Feasible but flawed

The NanoMark tests were conducted in response to a May 3 University of California (UC)-Davis study in which researcher Michael Beddow concluded that microstamping is "feasible, but flawed." Beddow, a graduate student, performed the study as a master's thesis under Fred Tulleners, director of the forensics program at UC-Davis. Tulleners was formerly director of the California Department of Justice crime lab in Sacramento, as well as the Sacramento and Santa Rosa county crime labs. A university press release covering the study stated that microstamping "does not work well for all guns and ammunition tested" and required "more testing to determine the costs and feasibility of a statewide program."

NSSF: Background on Firearms Microstamping Technology:

The study found that micro-characters laser engraved on the ID Dynamics-supplied firing pins tested suffered varying degrees of degradation; in some cases severe degradation. The markings micro-characters laser engraved onto the tip firing pins did not reliably and consistently “copy” or imprint (impress) the information onto the primer of the expended cartridge case. The test results were also impacted by the type and brand of ammunition used in the test. The design and normal operation/functioning of the firearm tested influenced the results, i.e. depth of firing pin indentation (impression) on the primer, whether the firearm produced “firing pin drag,” whether it produced multiple firing pin strikes on the primer that obliterated or deformed some or all of the impressions of the micro-characters on the cartridge casing. The technology did not work at all on rimfire firearms and ammunition, which are very common. The results were also impacted depending on the nature of the micro-characters laser engraved on the firing pin, i.e. alphanumeric code, a “gear code” or radial bar code. Notably, due to size/space limitations and the geometry of firing pins, ID Dynamics is incapable of producing alphanumeric coded firing pins with enough micro-characters to display the name of the manufacturer, the model and serial number of the firearm on the tip of the firing pin, as called for by H. 6343. The radial bar code and dot code firing pins degraded more rapidly than the alphanumeric coded firing pins and were less reliable.

Newsgroups.derkeiler.com - RE: New Test Affirms Validity of Microstamping Technology:

The Lone Weasel wrote: Bama Brian said:

The Lone Weasel wrote:

May 24, 2007

New Test Affirms Validity of Microstamping Technology

Seattle, WA (May 25, 2007) –NanoMark Technologies, a
division of ID Dynamics, recently completed a rigorous
test of the microstamping process that demonstrates the
validity and efficacy of this exciting, evolutionary new
technology.

A study done by NanoMark? This is just as valid as those
studies done by the cigarette companies showing that
cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Cigarette corporations made billions on cigarettes; Lizotte donated his royalties for microstamping patents so gun manufacturers could implement the technology with nominal expense.

Microstamping does not cause cancer, CrammaJammaDingDangDong.

The HighRoad (ref: The Washington Post):

Proponents from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said this would cost manufacturers only between 50 cents and $1 per firearm. They said that in many homicides _ 45 percent in California _ no arrest is made because of lack of evidence.

Yeah, right ... except for the cost of manufacturing ammunition under the serialization requirements imposed upon a small-item, mass-produced manufacturing process.

(Does not identify the technology provider; I just threw this in because I love reading The High Road

The conclusions reached by various commentators, with varying degrees of technical evaluation, strongly suggests that the technology would be expensive to implement and administer, and problematic in terms of reliability.

This is being established on the basis of criminal prosecution for capital crimes; is this the kind of technical support we want to rely on when it means the possible execution for Murder of an innocent man whose only crime is that he bought a legal weapon and The State cannot practically determine possession, but will legally be justified in averring J'Accuse on the basis of dubious technology?

Finally, when we search for NANOMARK, which has consistently been co-identified with ID Dynamics of Seattle, Wa., we find this:

NanoMark Technologies has developed a PATENTED BALLISTIC TAGGING TECHNOLOGY. The technology places an identification mark on each cartridge casing ejected from a properly outfitted firearm at the moment of firing each bullet. The idea is to have this technology integrated in firearms as an alternative to the ballistic “fingerprinting” methods currently under such hot debate.

Today's common "ballistic fingerprinting" technology is the computer automation of the science practiced by Forensic Firearms Examiners. These specialists have honed the science of comparing the signature of two bullets and/or cartridges, and have shown an extremely high degree of success as long as two physical specimens are available for the match. In ballistic fingerprinting, it is hoped that a computer can compare one physical piece of evidence to a virtual picture of the first ammunition fired by a firearm. Relying on a vast databases containing tediously large image files, the computer systems have fallen short in delivering accuracy and repeatability. This has called into question the concept of ballistic fingerprint database technology's readiness by some of the most respected Forensic Firearms Examiners in the world. [Ed: yes, and you suggest that you are more reliable ... but independent tests suggest that your reliability is questionable at best.]

Our technology eliminates the need for national gun registration or a national database for new guns sold. The ID marks delivered by Ballistic ID Tagging can be simply viewed by utilizing imaging equipment commonly found at local, state and federal forensics laboratories. Because of its uniqueness, it does not require extensive cross-jurisdictional ballistic image databases or a national ballistic image database containing the files of new guns sold every year. [Ed: see below.]

Our technology imparts a unique, indelible, and microscopic code onto the cartridge casings when a bullet is fired and the cartridge case is ejected from a properly outfitted firearm. This code takes the form of encrypted symbols, bar codes or simple alpha-numeric characters (such as a serial number or some type of tracking number) that can be accessed at the individual manufacturers’ level. This type of identifier would immediately and unquestionably lead investigators to a specific gun without requiring the manpower and expense associated with the creation and maintenance of a ballistic image database containing millions of images. Furthermore, it has been shown that as a gun wears over time, its fingerprint changes enough to confuse the current generation of database search routines.

[Ed: yes, and the horse may learn to sing. The firing pin ... source of the microstamping ... will not wear under extended usage to the point where it provides unreliable/inconsistent readings. All crimes will be committed with firearms which eject the case upon firing. All 'crime guns' will be used during commission of a crime by the original purchaser. Your database search routines are flawless. And I promise to respect you in the morning, you idiot.]

We understand the volatile political and social issues involved with gun legislation at any level, but to give you an idea of the attention we have received recently, a state Senator from California has asked us to testify in front of the California State Senate regarding the practical nature of using our technology instead of the ballistic image database technique. We are also participating in a funded project by the California Department of Justice Forensics Laboratory and the California Criminalistics Institute to help determine the best implementation strategies for a state the size of California.

[Ed: your testimony is completely objective because your heart is true, and you have no economic reason why you should lie about such an important subject.]

That's the Smoking Gun.

The "sole-source" purveyor of technology for Microstamping Ammunition is NanoMark (copyright 2004), a division of ID Dynamics, and they are indeed marketing the technology specifically for California.

A few comments on the claims of Nanomark:

"Our technology eliminates the need for national gun registration or a national database for new guns sold. The ID marks delivered by Ballistic ID Tagging can be simply viewed by utilizing imaging equipment commonly found at local, state and federal forensics laboratories. Because of its uniqueness, it does not require extensive cross-jurisdictional ballistic image databases or a national ballistic image database containing the files of new guns sold every year."

This is pure marketing smoke-and-mirrors. In fact, it absolutely requires a "national database" ... but it must necessarily be established by the manufacturer. That would occur on a 'cost-plus' basis, of course, and there are no provisions for oversight.

(On the other hand, if it were to be operated by private industry rather than by a governmental entity, it just might eliminate the bureaucratic idiocy necessitated by Public Sector Participation. Hmmm ... we should consider this?)

On the third hand, all claims of 'objectivity' go right out the window.

Canada refunds millions to gun owners

Canada's attempt to register firearms has met a new low in standards.

"The federal auditor general has estimated that the registry, which was supposed to be self-financing, ran up cost overruns of nearly $1 billion in its first decade in operation."

But ...

"The latest report by the federal firearms commissioner, made public Tuesday, also estimated that some 76,000 gun enthusiasts failed to renew licences [sic] that ran out during 2006."

and ...

"That meant, by year-end, that the holders of those expired licences were deemed - at least according to the letter of the law - to be illegally in possession of roughly 234,000 weapons."

So ...

"Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced in May 2006 that the Tories would waive the fees for licence applicants for the next two years and would also grant a one-year amnesty to owners of unregistered rifles and shotguns.

The amnesty, which essentially protects people from criminal prosecution for violating the law, was renewed in 2007 and the government has served notice it will be extended again this year.

The Conservatives have also transferred the Canada Firearms Centre, which had been a stand-alone regulatory agency, to the RCMP in an effort to save on administration costs."

What does this all mean?

Canada's Liberal government, under Prime Minister Jean Chreiten, instituted a Firearms Registry which had been expected to "pay for itself". It didn't. In fact, the concept was so difficult to establish as a registry and so expensive to administer that it has cost the Canadian government over $1,000,000,000 (relax, it's only Canadian money) so far.

The registration is required to be renewed by gun owners annually, but gun owners are declining to renew their registration. They assume that these owners still have the guns, and are therefore illegally possessing firearms.

They can't afford to track down and prosecute illegal firearms owners, so they have declared an amnesty (for two years now, going on the third year) which (a) still isn't working, and (b) even if it did work, they are no longer collecting the fees which (c) wouldn't pay for the 'self-paying' system anyway.

This illicit system of firearms registration doesn't work, doesn't pay for itself, and is now being openly flaunted by gun owners who realize that there's nothing their government can do about it.

Hooray for the Canadians!

They have sacrificed themselves on the altar of Socialism and Nanny-Statism for over a decade, only to prove that ... it ... just ... doesn't ... work!

We can only hope that the American Politicians are paying attention to this fiscal boondoggle, and will cease their attempts to enact similar measures which are ill-conceived and badly implemented.

Frankly, neither Canada nor America can any longer afford these repressive controls on the civil rights of their citizens.

As France, Germany and Great Britain (and now Canada) have learned to their sorrow, Socialism ... and Nanny Statism ... are just not economically feasible in a Major Nation.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

Charlton Heston

I note with great sadness the passing of Charlton Heston.


Academy Award Winning Actor, Civil Rights Activist, President of the Screen Actors Guild and the National Rifle Association ... Heston was a Renaissance Man of the 20th Century.

He was a leader in his art, in his politics, and in his love for his fellow man.

Heston died of Alzheimer's Disease ... an infliction which in unavoidable, untreatable, and the most degrading, painful end known to man. Even the Ebola virus will cause death in a matter of days or weeks, be Alzheimer's takes its toll in years painful to inflicted and to the family.

It is to his credit that when confronted with this horror, he made the announcement personally, on film, with dignity, and seemed to be more concerned with the effect on his family, friends and public than with the effect on his person, his personality.

The death of the mind is the most terrible fate, yet he accepted it with apparent equinimity and faith.


I liked him for his stage performances, I loved him for his forthright stand against encroachment of the rights of his fellow man, but I most respected him for his faith and for his courage.

The world is much smaller for the loss of this fine man.

Encoded Ammunition: South Carolina

The NRA managed to keep its collective head barely above water (rather than it's usual position on these matters ... tucked in a dark, stinky place) by announcing that another Southern state, South Carolina, has introduce an Encoded Ammunition bill (SB1259). (You need to read all the way to the bottom of this NRA alert to find mention of the bill.)


The bill, introduced April 2, 2008, requires that "... certain handgun and assault weapon ammunition ...", by January 1, 2010, "... must be encoded by "... a [sic] unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile ..." by the manufacturer.

("... No later than January 1, 2012, all noncoded ammunition owned by private citizens and retail outlets must be disposed ...).

It also requires the registration of "ammunition vendor(s)"; the usual identification of buyer on special forms at the time of purchase; the usual monetary and penal penalties for purchaser, vendor and manufacturer for non-compliance; and financial support of the project by 'end-user fees' not to exceed one-half-cent per bullet.

As is also usual with state-based 'Encoded Ammunition' bills, there is no exemption to enactment of the bill if reliable technology is not found to be available within the given time-frame, nor mention that existing technology is both single-user and unproven.

Also, no justification for this legislation is provided, nor is the term "handgun and assault weapon ammunition" defined.
_________________________________

This is the same old "Bulltwaddle" (thanks to Rivrdog for providing useful terminology) which we have seen proposed by the Legislatures of a baker's dozen states previously, but given that the states which first proposed these bills are slowly rejecting the (obviously unworkable) legislation, we can only hope that other states will learn from the lesson and desist in their despicable and detestable efforts to contravene the Second Amendment by other means.

Incidentally, the single-vendor involved, represented by Ammunition Accountability, still lists fifteen states on its roll of political supporters. Among these states is Tennessee, which we have seen today has rejected the bill ... as have some other states.

I don't know about you, but I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that gambling is permitted at Rick's American Cafe. Er, sorry; I mean that I am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that politicians continue to introduce these bills when they have proved to be so problematic.

One is tempted to believe that the politicians involved have agenda which admittedly does not support the Second Amendment rights of the people they expect to vote for them, yet still leads them to propose such bills for the sole purpose of publically helping them to 'look good' to the minority population of their home states who continue, against all reason, to oppose private ownership and usage of firearms.

Could it be that their priority is political, rather than conserving the rights of their constituency?

Shocking.

Dead in Tennesee: Encoded Ammunition Bill

According to a recent NRA announcement, the Encoded Ammunition is D.O.A. in Tennessee.

The bill, which was recently (February 3, 2008) Geek-Announced here, was introduced in both the State Senate (SB3395, which is summarized here) and House (HB3245).

On April 2, 2008, the House took action on HB3245; specifically, as interpreted by the NRA:

House Bill 3245, sponsored by State Representative Larry Miller (D-88), was defeated when it was withdrawn from the House Judiciary Criminal Practice and Procedure Sub-Committee on Wednesday, April 2. HB3245 would have require all handgun ammunition manufactured or sold in Tennessee to be coded with a serial number, and entered into a statewide database at the time of sale. Encoded ammunition would be registered to the purchaser and would include the date of transaction, the purchaser’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number, and the serial number of the ammunition. Its companion bill, Senate Bill 3395, sponsored by State Senator Reginald Tate (D-33) has seen no action in the Senate Judiciary Committee since January 23.

I'm assuming that the Senate Bill is toothless, without a vote for financing from the House.

Personally, I find this heartening ... if not surprising. It's difficult to imagine that the fine residents of Tennessee would allow this kind of repressive end-run on the Second Amendment to be considered without significant negative feed-back from an irate citizenry.

Still, it's worth paying close attention to other state legislatures which have proposed Encoded Ammunition bills. These bills have not received, in the most part, significant publicity from the Main-Stream Media or, for that matter, from the NRA. While the MSM is generally not inclined to serve their readers by announcing this kind of legislation, and the NRA has so many other gun-rights issues which it (apparently) considers 'more important', we would best serve our own interests by being aware of these bills and actively opposing them at the grassroots level ... a level to which the NRA gives lip-service, but not always timely and active support.

Greensburg, Kansas: firearms confiscations in 2007

On May 4, 2007, Greensburg was devastated by an EF5 tornado that traveled rapidly though the area, destroying more than 95 percent of the city and killing 11 people.

As was the case in New Orleans during the predations of Hurricane Katrina, residents were forcibly evacuated. And was the case in Katrina, many firearms were confiscated.

The difference is that the confiscations occurred when there was essentially nobody home. There is no justification proposed for these confiscations. And most telling, the rarest and most valuable of the firearms confiscated have just ... disappeared.

Xavier has more information about these mysterious disappearances of personal property, and the article discusses the circumstances under which the city was evacuated and how residents were neither notified that their personal property had been removed, by whom, or for what purpose.

Go thou, and read the whole thing.

Air Travel with Firerms is ... confusing

I know you're looking at that title and, if you've every tried to "Fly the Friendly Skies" with a firearm, you're thinking: "Duh!"

My personal experiences are 4 or 5 years old, but I know that the Belts & Suspenders method is best if you really must fly an American airline on your way to a shooting match.

Lessons learned include:

1. Make reservations as early as possible.
2. Get an 'electronic ticket'; that assures that your reservations are in the system and WILL be called up on the computer at check-in.
3. Before the flight (probably before making reservations), go to the airline's website and find their corporate regulations for carrying a firearm and ammunition in Checked Luggage.
4. At the same time, go to the TSA website and get their regulations. You would be surprised at how widely these two sets of rules can vary, especially in regards to how much ammunition you can carry. No, I don't know why this matters to the airlines ... weight in lead is the same as the weight in toiletries, varying only in quantity. (Keep track of that link ... you'll see it again.)
5. Print ALL of the regulations, and keep them with you when you check in for your flight.
6. Call the airline, with the confirming code, and talk to a shift supervisor. You want to talk to her (it's never a 'him') to explain that you will be carrying a firearm in checked baggage, and that you want to ensure that your packing is consistent with their rules.
7. During the conversation, the supervisor will be adding notes and comments to your reservation. This is important, perhaps crucial, because often the clerks at check-in are not familiar with these regulations.
8. When you check in to your flight, have the printed rules handy, as well as the name of the corporate supervisor you spoke with. As you explain that you are carrying one or more firearms as well as ammunition, you may notice a growing expression of non-comprehension on the face of the counter clerk. With a smile and a lot of patience, you can walk the employee through the process. They will be reassured when you can point them to their own reservation notes and see where the Corporate-level supervisor has all the necessary information on file for their review.
9. It is not required by TSA that you demonstrate that the firearms are unloaded; you may affirm that either verbally or by written document. However, the individual airline may (still) require that you demonstrate that the firearms is unloaded. It will help if you carry the firearm sufficiently disassembled that you don't have to rack the slide, or otherwise open the chamber (with accompanying threatening noise) after you have unlocked and opened the case. Remember, you're probably going through this process at the check-in counter with unaware passengers in line behind you, and on either side of you. Discretion is advised to avoid frightening people who have never seen a real, life gun.

Now, some or most of that advice may be dated. I'm hoping that people who have flown with firearms under the more current regulations will chime in here to help provide a better comprehension of the process.

Recently, TSA has changed their regulations.


Geek With A .45 has a summary of those changes, which include an 'advisory' (not a 'regulation') that seems to be significant ... if subtle.

I suggest that you go read his article for a full appreciation of the change.

Skeptical? Remember the link provided in point (4.) above? Click on it and read the original TSA stuff 'in situ'. It won't reassure you, but at least you will be more likely to accept that the Schizophrenics at TSA are working hard to make Air Travel with Firearms [more] ... confusing.

How Not to Use a Mortar

Scott (via Higbie) sent me this video on Monday.

I'm not quite sure what it represents, or where it originally came from, but it does seem to provide reassuring evidence of the incompetence of the "Allah Ackbar" crowd.

(If you don't like the teeny-screenie version, you can download the full-size version of the 3.3MB video here.)


\\

Front Sight Range

Sometimes I get email from folks I've never heard of before.

This is the case here, when I received a note from "Rory".

Rory is obviously associated with the "Front Sight" range in Arizona. We've all see the advertisements ("First Lesson Free") over the past few years, and I presume you're as curious as I am about the quality of mass-firearms training as I am.

Here's the information I have been made privy to. I won't make value judgments, that's your job.

Hey Jerry,

Over here at VBS.tv we just had the chance to head out to Pahrump, Nevada to attend the gun training mecca Front Sight, it was like Christmas all over again.

Jesse Pearson pulled the short straw and got to head out for a long weekend on the ins and outs of self defense, gun maintenance, and valuable lessons such as the way to put someone down, really, is to place two shots in their thoracic cavity and then, if they are still coming, send one coup de grace to a little box on the human face that's framed by the eyebrows and the upper lip. We had a blast and think that given the current strife over the 2nd Amendment, the timing of this piece could not be better.

After all, when the meth head kicks down your door looking for cash, do you want a Glock or an egg beater? That's what I thought.

4 Part Series on Front Sight on VBS.tv

Part 1 of 4 -�http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1460774120

Tactical firearms training in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Part 2 of 4 -�http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1460763090

Jesse's shooting partner is terse, but supportive.

Part 3 of 4 -�http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1465378645

A not too surprising consensus on the importance of the second amendment.

Part 4 of 4 -�http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1463310997

When someone's at your door, screaming "Where's my drugs?" you should be on the ready.

I thought the content would be perfect for fans of the site, hope you agree.

Stay locked and loaded,

Rory

Rory Ahearn

VICE/VBS.tv

97 North 10th St

Suite 204

Brooklyn, NY 11211

718-233-3684

rory@viceland.com

AIM - roedood

California AB2062: Permit to buy ammunition

HT: NRA
On February 19, 2008, California Assemblyman de Leon introduced a new bill (AB2062) which would require ammunition purchasers to obtain a permit to buy ammunition, at a one-time cost of $35, before any ammunition purchases could be made from retailers. There is a 30-day waiting period before the permit would be issued.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

It would ("... commencing July 1, 2009 ...") prohibit anyone from transferring more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month to another person without buying an Ammunition Vendor License. (Special provisions include " ... a background clearance for any employees who would handle ammunition ...").

Ammunition vendors would be prohibited from displaying ammunition where a customer could access it.

This is, of course, entirely apart from Ammunition Serialization, Ammunition Encoding, and Microcoding of Ammunition bills and/or laws which are already either extant in law or proposed.


You can contact Assemblyman de Leon at:
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0045
Tel: (916) 319-2045
Fax: (916) 319-2145

District Office:
360 West Avenue 26, Suite 121
Los Angeles, CA 90031
Tel: (323) 225-4545
Fax: (323)225-4500


Let's review:

Current law requires that firearms 'microstamp' identification on the cartridge. Proposed laws would, if enacted, require that ammunition be encoded (serial numbers on the base of the bullet or projectile, and a matching serial number on the interior of the cartridge case). And of course, the purchaser of any ammunition must, by current law, be identified by name, Driver's License Number, Date of Birth etc.

Now the purchaser must be registered ("buy a license") and observe a waiting period before purchasing said encoded ammunition to shoot in a microstamping firearm, and would be prohibited from providing said registered ammunition in quantities exceeding fifty (50) rounds per month to anyone ... including immediate family members.

There are no definitions of what ammunition is covered by this bill, so we can safely assume that all ammunition is subject to these restrictions. Read: one box of .22 rimfire, or two boxes of shotgun shells, are the most you could provide for your child or spouse.

If there was ever any doubt that the State of California is determined to put as many obstacles as possible in the path of an honest citizen who chooses to own and use a legal firearm, let this put an end to this delusion.

It's obvious that this and similar bills serve no legitimate purpose (legitimate in the context of "use of firearms for nefarious purposes" ... as far as the California State Assembly is concerned, any use of a firearm is 'nefarious'.) The only purpose of this kind of legislation is to inconvenience legitimate owners of legal firearms owners, with the intention of rendering their firearms economically infeasible and administratively cumbersome.

Lip Service reference is made in the text of the bill to "... persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms ..." as well as a new concept: "... persons prohibited from possessing ammunition." I submit that the latter encumbrance is superfluous, gratuitous and insulting.

What about the Registration of Ammunition Purchasers?

Strangely, the 'registration' portion of this bill refers directly to Section 11106 of the Penal Code, Paragraph d, sub-paragraph a in the phrase: "...or information reported to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12062 as to the brand, type, and amount of ammunition transferred
...".

This would seem to imply that much more stringent identification requirements must be met, to the degree cited for Firearms Registration.

The assumption is that the update to existing laws are borrowing from a section already restricting firearms ownership, but inappropriately. You will have to reference Section 1106, Paragraph C, in order to put it in context. But who cares to do this, as this bill is not only ill-advised, but poorly constructed, and is (hopefully) destined for oblivion if only because the new Californian Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon is so incompetent that he and his staff cannot write a consistent change to existing law.

If it's any consolation, here's the current status of the bill as of the 2/19/07 reading:\
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.


I only hope that I have correctly interpreted this bill as having roundly been Stuck In Committee for all eternity.
_________________________________________________


Purely for your convenience, here is the introductory text and official summary of the bill:

AB 2062, as introduced, De Leon. Ammunition.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain records pertaining to firearms transactions.

This bill would require the department to maintain additional information relating to ammunition transfers, handgun ammunition permittees, and licensed handgun ammunition vendors, as specified.

Existing law establishes the Prohibited Armed Persons File, which lists persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms, as specified.

This bill would expand those provisions to include persons prohibited from possessing ammunition.

Existing law generally regulates the sale of ammunition.

This bill would establish a program administered by the Department of Justice for licensing handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. The bill would also authorize the issuance of a handgun ammunition permit, to be used by purchasers of handgun ammunition, as specified.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to incorporate the permit information into a permittee's California driver's license, as specified.

The bill would establish a database maintained by the department to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors. The bill would also establish a database of handgun ammunition permittees.

This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2009, unless specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50 rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for those employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice to maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would also provide that no retail seller of ammunition shall sell, offer for sale, or display for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the retailer or employee thereof. Violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

The bill would further provide that handgun ammunition may only be purchased in a face-to-face transaction and only if certain conditions exist.
Existing law generally regulates what information is required to be obtained in connection with the transfer of ammunition.

This bill would, subject to exceptions, require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. A violation of these provisions would be subject to civil fines, as specified.

snip-snip, bang bang?

This was brought to our attention by Conservative Scalawag, who offers no assurance that it is not an April Fools joke.

Personally, I think it's for real. I think not, but I sure hope that the Indians are NOT trading firearms licenses for vasectomies.

That would be just too cruel.

"The number of vasectomies in the district had not even crossed the double digit figure in the past eight years. Last year, there were only eight cases of vasectomy and, surprisingly, a year before that (2006) it was only one," Shivpuri District Collector Manish Shrivastava told IANS on phone.

"I then put on my thinking cap and tried to find out the reason behind such a poor response to vasectomy. I soon came to know that the people in this region have a penchant for their macho image and they find going for sterilisation beneath their dignity.

"Since people in this dacoit infested district also have a penchant for guns, I thought of providing them a bigger symbol of masculinity (a gun) and told them to come forward for vasectomy," Shrivastava said.

"Guns in dacoit infested Chambal region, of which Shivpuri is a part, are not only considered a status symbol but are also a sign of manliness."

This has obviously worked better than the Rs.1,100 given to the man undergoing vasectomy and Rs.200 to the person who motivated him - the earlier incentive schemes.

"This year, however, over 150 men have got themselves sterilised since we have offered gun licences. I expect another 100 by the end of this month," Shrivastava said.

Brrrrrrr!

"New Constitutional Right"?

Kevin, over at The Smallest Minority, posted a brilliant argument in favor of the Second Amendment as an Individual Right.

This was over a week ago, and I am chagrined that I didn't actually read it earlier. I've obviously been too busy Having A Life, which is Death For A Blogger.

Go read the article here (it's not Geek Length) and tell me you don't find his thesis convincing.

Encoded Ammunition: Alabama SB541

SB541

SYNOPSIS:
Under existing law, there is no requirement that ammunition manufactured or sold in this state be coded.
This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2009, that handgun ammunition be coded. This bill would require by January 1, 2011, the disposal of all non-coded ammunition owned by private citizens or retail outlets.
This bill would require the Department of Public Safety to establish and maintain an ammunition coding database. This bill would require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Public Safety.
This bill would require certain information in connection with handgun ammunition transactions be recorded, transmitted to the Department of Public Safety, and maintained by the vendor and manufacturer.
This bill would provide for a fee not to exceed 0.005 cent per bullet or round of ammunition to establish and maintain the ammunition code database.
This bill would provide penalties for violations.
Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, prohibits a general law whose purpose or effect would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds from becoming effective with regard to a local governmental entity without enactment by a 2/3 vote unless: it comes within one of a number of specified exceptions; it is approved by the affected entity; or the Legislature appropriates funds, or provides a local source of revenue, to the entity for the purpose.
The purpose or effect of this bill would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of the amendment. However, the bill does not require approval of a local governmental entity or enactment by a 2/3 vote to become effective because it comes within one of the specified exceptions contained in the amendment.

Yadda yadda yadda ... this is SO like all the other bills we've seen here recently.

Go there read the whole thing, you know the drill.

This makes ... what ... 13 states whose whores senators-for-hire statesmen have introduced the non-starter gun control bill?

Why don't y'all Alabama folks just lynch this idiot NOW, and save yourselves a whole lot of write your senator and express to him your displeasure at the advent of another unworkable Gun Control bill.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anybody

NRA & Katrina
There are so many titles I could have put on this article.

These are the stories of New Orleans Firearms confiscations, and while I am disinclined generally to tout the NRA ... sometimes, you need a national organization to help fight for your civil rights.

In the enduring aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we are still seeing the reciprocations of illegal firearms confiscations in New Orleans ... years ago.

Although some legislation has resulted from the illegal firearms confiscations in New Orleans, we are left with the images and New Orleans.

Never again.

Encoded Ammunition: ACS vs NRA Part I

While researching this subject, I've found that I'm not the only blogger searching for more information.

Call Me Ahab has found a series of YouTube which (as far as I can tell) document the NRA's online logger interviews with Russ Ford, from Ammunition Coding Systems, discussing their 'sole source' technology.

This appears to be a five-part interview, and I admit that I haven't viewed any except the first part at this time. However, it occurred to me that there exist no transcripts to this interview.

Therefore, I present links to the Call Me Ahab original links to the five part interview, the You Tube link to the first (9:49 minute) segment of the interview, and the transcript of that segment which I have compiled.

ACS Transcript 1 of 5. (A 40KB DOWNLOAD)

If you experience problems downloading this file, or if you require a different format other than MS-WORD v-2003, Please let me know so that I can provide the information in a different formatn.

Also, please note that my transcription skills are admittedly less than perfect, and the sound on the original video is imperfect. Thus, there are some short segments which I found to be unintelligible; these are noted in the transcript as some variation of "(******)", and you can interpret them as you will.

These unintelligible passages are not common, but they do occur. You will have to translate them as seems most likely to your own ear.

Considering that it has required about two hours to transcribe the first 10-minute video, you can expect that it will take me five working days to transcribe the entire5-part interview.

Also, make no assumptions about the accuracy of the quotes provided; this is the best effort I can honestly make, but it's possible that there are errors. If you care to send corrections, I will note them in a future update but also note that your interpretation is "dubious". No reflection on you, but if I can't understand the verbiage I can't warrant that your interpretation of a flawed source is accurate.

We're all just trying to understand the situation, which is confusing at best.

(Note also that I don't guarantee that I'll manage to transcribe all 5 videos. I'm not getting paid for this stuff, and it's too much like work for me to willingly accept it as a duty.)

Bulltwaddle

My last post, an encouragement for a prospective New Shooter's intention to go through a USPSA Certification Course and join us in USPSA competition, has apparently been misinterpreted. My fault, and I apologize if I've been unclear.

This evening I found the following comment:

If you folk can't have fun with nothing BUT encouragement for new members, it's no wonder that some of those leagues are falling on hard times.

In general, I agree with this statement.

I have participated in competitive shooting sports which make it difficult for a new shooter to enjoy the experience. For example, I shot .22 Caliber Gallery Rifle (indoor rifle precision marksmanship at fifty feet) during Junior High, High School and College. I did fairly well and achieved the rating of Expert when I was 18.

After I graduated, I went into the army for two years. When I came out I found a club in the town where I was then living and signed up for both club membership and participation in their 'League' competition.

Shooting as an adult, rather than as a junior or in the non-scholastic club in my home town, I discovered that not everyone was as welcoming of new shooters, nor as conscientious in observing the etiquette required in any sporting activity, as had been my previous experience.

In this context, "etiquette" consisted in such simple, obvious forms as not engaging in loud conversation just behind the firing line while other competitors (even team-mates) are shooting. I found this to be very distracting, and when I asked for silence my polite request was rewarded by indignation and hostility. The team captain was among the worst of the offenders.

Another annoying experience was that, when I was shooting for score in a postal match (on our home range), other team members seemed to think nothing of setting up next to me on the firing line by dropping their shooting match on the dusty concrete floor, kicking up billowing clouds of dust and gunpowder residue. This fine grit gets into your eyes, nose and throat causing tearing, coughing and congestion. It is impossible to ignore these distractions during precision shooting, and complaints again were, at best, ignored.

Etiquette is nothing more than respect for your fellow shooters, plus the un-written rules of the range.

Golfing etiquette, for another example, includes allowing the golfer whose ball is on the green but farthest away from the pin to go first; this permits them a smooth green, which has not been trampled by cleated shoes.

So when I speak of the etiquette of Practical Shooting, it includes being ready to shoot when it is your turn, so that the match does not suffer needless delays; doing your share of the work on a range (taping cardboard targets, resetting steel targets, etc.); not congregating in front of the safety table in BS sessions to the point where those who need to bag or unbag pistols, or perform minor immediate maintenance cannot get to the table.

For a new shooter, these points of etiquette are not intuitively obvious from reading the rule book. The certification courses usually include a 'range segment' where the instructor may mention concerns of etiquette, but they are not usually stressed because the time available is usually so limited that almost all of it is used in teaching safety and gun-handling, plus the application of competition rules.

It is often up to the experienced competitors to welcome new shooters, insure that their current and future participation is a positive, safe and fun experience, help them to understand the competitive requirements of each stage, teach them the little things which are not possible to teach during Certification, and assure them that any support they need to get through the day without problems is immediately available without criticism and without making them feel any more self-conscious than they do already.

I can't speak for other clubs, of course, but in the Columbia Cascade Section (CCS) we do these things very well because we actively recruit new shooters and we want them to keep coming back. We all enjoy the sport, we think everyone who has a pistol and wants a place to have fun using it is assured of a safe, wholesome environment.

At some clubs in CCS the person who is shooting his or her first match is assigned an experienced shooter in the squad to work with and coach the new shooter. At Tri-County Gun Club in Sherwood this is a formal process.

At the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club this is informal, consisting of the Match Director asking an experienced shooter in each squad to help the individual beginner.

And at Dundee ... they know they don't have to ask anyone person in particular to help a NuGuy because they realize that everyone in the squad is more than willing to do whatever is necessary.

(At COSSA, in Bend, nothing is said or implied; a new shooter is simply swamped with folks whose primary concern is the benefit and encouragement of anyone they don't personally know to be an experienced competitor.)

In short, in CCS, we not only actively encourage new shooters and provide them as much training as we can before they shoot their first matches, but every individual competitor on the range is willing to take time away from their own competitive preparations to support the new shooter.


We are all there to enjoy the day in CCS, and everyone who cares to join us is as welcome as a sunny day in December.

If there's a dark side to this process, it's that USPSA folks are as fun-loving as Dolphins, and you will see friends teasing friends at every opportunity. This may be off-putting for some folks, but new shooters are universally treated with respect and a growing sense of camaraderie until, sometimes, they find themselves being gently teased by others in the squad. Frankly, we are aware that running & gunning is serious business and safety is the primary and most important factor anytime anyone picks up a gun. Even though we are serious about safety, that doesn't mean we have to be solemn about it.

We often see people show up for matches about whom we know nothing; we don't know what kind of people they are, we don't know anything about their ability to handle a pistol safely, and we don't know how sensitive they are about their personal dignity. In a way, it's like the first day at a nudist colony; either you fit in, or you don't.

If you don't fit in, you will know and we will know.

If you are unable to keep the basic rules of gun-handling safety paramount in your mind and still perform the basic competitive functions, by the end of the day you will know and we will know.

If you are a person who does not love yourself and who does not love others, by the end of the day you will know and we will know.

If you are there to learn how to kill people rather than to enjoy shooting competition, by the end of the day you will know and we will know.

But if you are there because you love shooting, and are looking for a way to measure your own skills against others who are using the same kind of equipment, then this is the purpose of IPSC/USPSA and you will know and we will know.

Fortunately, almost nobody who shows up for a match has missed being screened out by the Certification Course, so this is very rarely a problem. In 25 years of IPSC and USPSA competition, I have seen less than a half-dozen people who fit these categories, and they are self-screening. That is, nobody ever says: "we don't want you here". We're willing to work with you if you encounter problems. Those very rare individuals who have private agenda decide that they are not comfortable with the very-safe, very-friendly environment they find here.

For what it's worth, if you are a new shooter and you're self-conscious at your first match, then you are going through exactly the same thing that every one of us has experienced. We know that,

If you are terribly concerned that you will violate some safety measure, we're glad to see you because we have ALL experienced this self-doubt. The key is experience. In order to gain experience, you need to shoot some matches. You'll probably make some mistakes, but be assured that very few people make inexcusable mistakes on their first match.

The ultimate sin, if there is one, is to be unsafe. The penalty is a Match Disqualification ('DQ'); I've seen a few DQ's of new shooters, and it's discouraging. However, I've only seen one shooter DQ on his first match, and he came back to compete successfully in subsequent matches.

When you violate a safety rule, you are "DQ'd" and are not permitted to shoot any more at that match. You are determined to have been 'unable to shoot safely at this match'. That's all. Because Safety Rules are a belt and suspenders process, it is very rare that anyone has actually endangered anyone on the range. We usually stop you before it gets to that point.

In fact, I recently posted about a Range Officer who stopped a 'new shooter' who was obviously about to violate a range safety rule. We're that invested in encouraging new shooters, that we make a conscious effort to prevent you from erring.

I have personally DQ'd on three separate occasions, and I can attest that it is personally embarrassing. But it is survivable for everyone and the most healthy response is to recognize that you screwed up, understand how you screwed up, and make it your personal goal to never screw up in the same way again.

To get back to the original premise:

If you folk can't have fun with nothing BUT encouragement for new members, it's no wonder that some of those leagues are falling on hard times.

Well, yes.

But you see, in USPSA we're not a bunch of a**hats whose idea of fun is to haze the nuguy. We're responsible gun-owners who want a venue where we can safely shoot our pistols (and AR's and Shotguns) and who recognize that the best way we can insure our personal Right to Keep and Bear Arms is to grow our membership. We can best do this by enlisting new members who have the same values and priorities. We're out to prove that firearms are not just for killing, as the Gun-Grabbers would have it be assumed, but that competition is a legitimate use of even the most exotic type of firearms.

Sure, we want as many members as we can scarf up; but not at the expense of safe, responsible firearms ownership.

There's nothing more expensive to us than a member who is a crazed, irresponsible, incompetent gun-owner. We don't encourage this kind of person, and we don't think anyone should.

By the same measure, we understand that the kind of competition we do requires the highest level of competency possible. Most folks who are just beginning to shoot don't have the skills required for run-&-gun competition, so we teach these skills ... and we encourage them, we require them, we enforce them.

We're not elitist. We know that most folks have a lot to learn, but we're patient. We won't abide irresponsibility, but we also realize that new shooters have the desire to learn, the commitment to excel, and an innate integrity which will not allow them to err without a strong sense of having let themselves down, and having let their friends down.

If you consider this Bulltwaddle, then I can only suggest that my earlier comments have given the wrong impression, and for that I (again) apologize.

And if you want to learn how to shoot safely in the most balls-to-the-wall, X-sports environment available with a gun in your hand, I encourage you to give USPSA/IPSC a try.

You may not succeed, but I assure you that if you do, you will KNOW that you within the 90% of people on this earth who are caring, responsible, rational human beings.

This is a No Bulltwaddle zone.

(Can anyone create an icon for that? I would be grateful for our contribution.)

New Shooters: Personal Note to Peter

Peter, I know you're out there and that you're reading this article.

Buy the gun from Mac. Come shoot with us. Learn the real meaning of Humility.


We've all been there, we've all learned that brassing (picking up expended cartridges) for the other competitors in our squads is part of the experience.

But we encourage you to share the competitive experience, because IPSC/USPSA competition is so much more than just shooting.

There is an element of 'etiquette' involved, and if seems like "hazing" I assure you, personally that it is not.

We ALL brass for our brothers (and our 'sisters'), and our priority for new shooters is to teach them the safety rules, and to teach them how to be accepted by your fellow shooters.

Safety, first.

Then Etiquette.

Then the other stuff, such as being aware of how squads share the work (Taping, Brassing, and resetting Steel Targets).

We enjoy the company of new friends.

Five Myths of Ammunition Encoding

A couple of days ago (March 25, 2008), Kim DuToit wrote about the "Encoded Ammunition" phenomena which has been the 'Media Darling' of various State Legislatures for the past two months (and more).

(See here for a summary of "Encoded Ammunition" articles on this blog.)

Note: The Ammunition Accountability website currently (as of 3.28.08) lists 16 states in which Encoded Ammunition bills have been introduced. By the time you read this, the number may have increased ... but so far more than 20% of the United States of America have elected legislators who are ready and willing to sell out their constituents in the interest of appearing to be "Strong on the Gun Violence Issue". Do not, ever, vote for any state legislature who sponsors these bills. They are Not Your Friend.

As I read the Kim article, I was impressed by the unjustifiable confidence of both Kim and the people who commented on the article. They seemed to assume that if these bills were enacted into law, it would be 'easy' to undermine its enforcement.

This leads me to present the "Five Myths of Ammunition Encoding":

1: These laws only apply to factory produced ammunition; if I'm reloading, I don't have to abide by these laws.

Wrong.

The role of "Ammunition Manufacturer" is not defined in these bills.

If you reload your own ammunition, there is nothing in these bills to exempt you from being classified as an "Ammunition Manufacturer". The implication (easily interpreted by the Legislator or Executive who has no love for firearms) is that you must abide by the same rules as, say, Federal, Winchester, Remington, etc. You must encode every bullet, and if you don't manufacture the bullet you must buy encoded bullets from bullet manufacturers.

And if you do cast your own bullets, they must still be encoded.

2. If I do reload, I can buy encoded bullets and, by using only these bullets, I am in compliance with the laws.

Wrong.

In the majority of bills presented in the (so far) 16 infected states, the bills require that not only the bullet, but the cartridge case as well must be encoded with the same identifying number. Do you have any idea how expensive this is? Not only for Federal, Remington, Winchester et al but for you?

If you reload, assume that the cases you reload already have encoding numbers. If you have two numbers in the case (assuming you have the manufacturing facilities to meet the law) are you in compliance? Probably not, which implies that you can NOT re-use cases which have already been encoded.

3. These laws will not be enforced, because it's too costly and too time-consuming of LEO's (who have better things to do) to be contemplated.

Wrong.

Any state Legislature which would be so mis-guided as to enact these bills into Law would be willing to require the existant police forces to enforce them.

The administrators of the police have no compunctions when it comes to mis-use of their officers. At the highest levels, it is easy to conclude that politics assume a higher priority over the solving of crimes. Do not persuade yourself that the police will embrace a higher moral value than do the law-makers; they are of the same family, and are willing to subsume civil responsibilities to political realities (in their political perspective). The people who reach administrative levels of Police Politics are those who embrace personal advancement rather than the support of the Common Good. When you assume moral priorities of governmental administrators you fool only yourself

4. The legislators who vote these bills into law are determined to use them for the purpose of solving crimes.

Wrong.

These are political issues, not civil. Not Crime Prevention, not Crime Solving, not Defense of the Common Good. If you assume the high moral values of Legislators, remember:
They're all Lawyers, and Politicians.

There is no lower common denominator to be defined within the definition of Civil Service.


5. These bills will never be passed into laws, because they are so obviously unworkable.

Wrong.

"Obviously unworkable bills" are the epitome of targets for Politician.

That a bill is infeasible means only that the legislators who enact them, and the administrators who service them, are held to no higher moral standard.

That the enacted law is infeasible means only that the Legislature is absolved of responsibility, because it is obvious that their moral stance has been undermined by trifling practical matters. They have assumed the moral high ground; that Technology is unable to meet the standards which they have promised is NOT the fault of Legislature. The Senate/Assembly/Whatever has done their part, and if the (single-vendor) business which the legislature believed proves to be unable to meet their bloated promises, the Legislature had Done Its Part.

From this point on, the failure to meet objectives is a Business Decision, not a Moral Imperative.

Because the Legislature doesn't do Moral Imperatives.