Gun Control: About Control, not about Guns!

The Smallest Minority

You may recall that in 2008 I spent a considerable amount of time talking about two proposals to physically trace the origin of a firearm from which a bullet was fired. This has always been presented as an attempt to solve crime.

Essentially, these were various ways in which unique numbers would be 'microstamped' on either the bullet, or the cartridge case. The 'unique numbers' (or other unique identifying characteristics) would all Law Enforcement agencies to identify ... ultimately .. the person who fired the bullet during the commission of a crime.

There have been three methodologies defined. Two of them are new, untested and require that laws be passed at either the State or Federal level; they require that either the ammunition or the firearm used will emboss an unique identifier on the ammunition itself.

ENCODED AMMUNITION:

The first, and least practical approach, is that each unit of ammunition (a 'box' ... usually 20 rounds for rifle ammunition, typically 50 rounds for pistol ammunition) be pre-stamped during the manufacturing process. When purchasing the ammunition, the buyer must provide incontrovertible identification of name, address, and such demographic information as the individual state may deem advisable. That is linked with the specific encoded number of the individual 'unit' of ammunition. In each box of ammunition, all individual rounds are pre-stamped with a identifying mark, usually a number, and this mark is not present on ANY other unit or box of ammunition.

The intent is that the purchaser of ammunition would be readily identifiable by reading the microstamped identifier on either the bullet or the cartridge case (either or both of which were usually, in the bills of the various states proposing this law required to be encoded).

In a mass-production process, this approach is obviously unsupportable. The waste is incalculable, if even a single round must be rejected during the inspection phase; then all other rounds in that unit must be rejected also, and the necessary paperwork to certify that the number is 'rejected' would be beyond all but the most expensive procedures. The cost ammunition would be enormous, and the cost of governmental oversight would be absurd.

I have discussed this in slightly more detail here, and perhaps elsewhere.


MICROSTAMPING AMMUNITION:

In this scenario, there is no burden upon the ammunition manufacturers to accommodate difficult and absurd requirements to match 20 or 50 (or more) units to a single box of ammunition. Instead, the imposition is on the manufacturers of firearms.

New firearms would be required to emboss upon the breech-face of each firearm the produce an unique identifier, which would be 'related' to the firearm serial number. This would also be entered in a National Database, which includes also the description of the firearm .. type, model, etc. Presumably, upon retail purchase of each firearm the new owner information would also be entered into the same, or a related database.

There are as many objections to this process as to the Encoded Ammunition proposal, not the least is that this de facto constitutes Firearm Registration ... it would be a permanent record.

Of course, the people who propose to provide the technology are as adamant as those who provide Encoded Ammunition that it is reliable, unalterable, and easy to use. And of course both the technology and the claims are untested and unsupported by simple logic.

First, the identifier would only be embossed on the case, not on the bullet. Then consider that the microstamping on the case would only be usable by police if the case was found at the scene of the crime ... which immediately makes it unusable for revolvers (which do not eject a case when fired).

There is no evidence that a 'dirty gun' would impress a clear impression of the identifier on the base of the ejected brass, and depending on the extent and volume of the base of the brass might be dedicated to the manufacturer's headstamp, some rounds of ammunition may be less liable to display the entire identifier than others.

Of course, there is no reason to expect that a gun owner (who may not be the original retail purchaser) will not deface the breech face of the gun to obscure or eliminate the embossed identifier. It would have to be a raised stamping or engraving to make a readable impression on the brass, so it would be easy to remove by a dremel tool, or even a hone.

But it's not necessary to remove the impression by the physical means. The slide on a semi-automatic pistol, for example, is only a 'part'. How difficult would it be to buy a replacement part? The serial number is on the frame: is the Federal Government going to impose serialization requirements on a slide, similar to that already required on a 'firearm' (the frame)? Imagine the expense and bureaucratic burden that would be for a firearm owner?


No, this is no more usable or practical than the "Encoded Ammunition" scenario.

I have discussed this in slightly more detail here, and perhaps elsewhere.


BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING:

Finally this discussion gets down to the purpose of this article. Existing technology has historically been used to match ammunition components (bullet, case) to the firearm which fired the ammunition round by dint of either the striations on the bullet ... which reveals a profile of the barrel through which it has been fired ... or 'tool marks' on the case.

The bullet striations application is familiar to all of us who watch television. Two bullets are compared ... one from the crime scene, the other from a test round fired by a suspect firearm ... and both the rifling and 'supplemental' marks on the bullet (caused by wear on the barrel) will, supposedly, allow Law Enforcement Ballistic Forensic Examiners to definitively determine that a specific bullet has been fired by a specific firearm.

(More on this in a moment.)

An alternative approach is based on the theory that the cartridge case is similarly marked when a round of ammunition is fired. Usually this involves primer indentation caused by the unique profile of the firing pin, but also considers the mark of the ejector, and such striations on the case due to any unique marks caused by unique characteristics of the chamber which may 'scratch' the surface of the case.

If this last sentence seems carefully composed, that's because it is. The hypothetical marks may be caused by accumulated powder residue left by the firing of previous rounds through the barrel, imperfections or tool-marks imposed upon the chamber during manufacture, or ... well, one is left to one's own imagination as to the chain of events which may create unique identifiers on the cartridge case. It's easy to imagine that this combination of 'marks' might change during repetitive firing, and dependent on too many environmental factors (including cleaning) to be enumerated.

Which brings us to the original article from Mr. Kevin Baker (not "Bacon") in The Smallest Minority article of January 14, 2005.

We wouldn't want you to take our word for it, so this is an excellent time for you to read the entire article "Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (and Won't) Work".

Ignoring that the 'ballistic fingerprinting' is dependent on the failure of the firearm to change the components of the firearm (slide, firing pin, barrel), Baker emphasizes three things:

1. The validity of the approach is flawed because you have to have a comparison round to identify the firearm. The legal approach is to require firearm manufacturers to provide one (or two) sample fired cartridges which will be electronically scanned and entered into a Federal Database.
2. This sample is taken with a new firearm, one which has either never been fired, or has only been test-fired a very limited number of times. (Contrary to popular belief, new firearms are not typically 'test fired' before being made available for purchase. Some very expensive and exotic firearms are, but this is not the usual practice for most manufacturers.)
3. After a very limited amount of use, most firearms will 'imprint' upon the fired cartridge a decidedly different variety of scrapes, striations, etc.

But the most IMPORTANT consideration reported by Mr. Baker is that even brand new never-fired guns will imprint differently on different ammunition!

Breach marks, chamber marks, firing-pin indentations .. all are different on different brands of ammunition, different hardness of primers, different loads and bullets which result in different velocities (and, assumedly chamber pressures) will result in different markings.

In actual tests of new firearms, even with the same ammunition from the same manufacturer and from the same lot, tests were unable to match guns which fired the ammunition, even from a very restricted number of test firearms!

___________________________________________

Even if you choose not to read Bacon's article (if only to see the citations for his sources, at the end of the article), you should not exit this without reading his ultimate conclusion. I'll make it easy for you; here it is:

UPDATE, 1/19: This is probably the most linked and most viewed piece I've written to date. Thanks to everyone who has commented and pointed readers this way (though I'm surprised I haven't seen a single hate-bomb out of the two thousand or so who've read this.) One commenter over at Chicago Boyz made an observation that I would have included in the body of this piece if it weren't already so long:

I've long since concluded that the gun controlers [sic] don't really expect measures like these to "work", in the sense of lowering crime, or aiding the police. The inconvenience and cost to gun owners is what they're aiming for. In the long run, if they can make gun ownership enough of a hassle, the number of gun owners in the next generation will decline, and perhaps we'll lose enough political clout that they can get the outright ban they really want.

But that's not a motive they can openly admit, and still hope to get the programs enacted.

To which I replied:

Brett Bellmore hit the nail on the head - the purpose is not to build a useful tool for crimefighting, the purpose is to make it more difficult for individuals to aquire [sic] and keep firearms. The effort is, and the gun control groups state this implicitly, to reduce the number of guns, because they ALL blame "the number of guns" in circulation for the level of gun violence we have here.

The British did a yeoman's job of making gun ownership an onerous privilege to exercise, then used the rules under which that privilege is exercised to remove whole classes of firearms...

From the law-abiding subjects. The criminals, however, still have access to pretty much anything they want.

Note this passage from the second Maryland report:

The Vision of the MD-IBIS Program was to have it fully performing in three to five years. This was to include the amassing of some 30,000 database images per year. This projection fell and was embarrassingly overstating. The actual acquisition of cartridge case numbers was about 36% of the estimation. The main reason for this drop-off appears to be from the reduction of handgun sales in Maryland after the passage of the law.

Now, did those sales actually disappear, or did they go black-market? Did this law really reduce the influx of handguns into Maryland by nearly two-thirds, or did it make a whole bunch of Marylanders (choose to become) instant criminals?

Loading with the XL650 ... sort of (Part 1)

I had expected to allow the Continuing Story of Dillon and The Geek lay fallow for a while, hoping that I could eventually segue directly into the good news that the XL650 had been completely repaired and rejuvenated by a Factory rebuild.

That is, I had hoped so until friend Antipoda piped up this weekend asking “…how did your match go? Did you make a respectable showing? Did you have enough ammo? Have you solved your primeing problems? Have you considered selling your 650 at the next gunshow, and buying a 550b? “

[sigh]

Okay, I can’t afford to ignore the Compleat Contrarian.

Weekend before last, I stayed up until midnight trying to load enough ammo for the match. It took me roughly four hours to load 176 rounds of ammunition (some of which were later rejected when I examined them for flaws). I should have quit earlier, but sheer stubborn determination encouraged me to preserver when a more realistic man would have just borrowed ammunition from a friend.

The new parts for the XL650 did not solve the problem. If anything, it was worse. The primer disk wouldn't advance, because the primer arm didn't retreat to pick up the next hole in the primer disc and rotate it so the next primer was in place. I had to manually move the primer arm up and allow it to grab the next primer disk hole. I loaded about 100 rounds that way, and decided that if this wasn't enough ammunition to complete the match, I would just stop when I ran out of ammunition.

Then I spent another hour getting my gear together. It had been 9 months since I used the Open gun in competition, and I had to switch magazines, etc. I was sure it wouldn’t get done if I left it to the morning. In the end, I couldn’t find the extension which allowed me to use the same race holster for both a limited and an open gun (longer because of the compensator), so I decided to fake it.

Fortunately I had cleaned the gun thoroughly last time I used it, but I grabbed a bottle of solvent and ran a wet rag thru the barrel anyway. No spider nests, clean rag, good to go. Ran an oily rag thru the barrel, checked the sights (yep, battery still good) and put it all back in the gunrug, and that into the range bag with my 176 (+/-) loaded rounds.

I got to bed around 1 a.m. and then couldn’t get to sleep until around 4:30 a.m. which made me very groggy when the alarm went off at 7:30.

MATCH DAY

Quick shower to wake up, threw on jeans, shoes and the match shirt from the 1999 Limited Nationals at Las Vegas. My first National shirt, maybe it will bring me luck. I can use all I can get.

Stopped at Burger King for a breakfast sandwich, milk, stinky/greasy potatoes.

Then stopped at Dutch Bros for some hot coffee. I have to stay awake!


I ate the greasy/stinky potatoes on the drive up, drank a bit of milk, and ALL of the coffee!

When I go tot the match, it had already started. It's haying season in Oregon, and combines were moving from one field to the next over the country road on which I was traveling. Traffic gets backed up for miles behind combines which travel at 20 mph, tops. So it took me an hour and a half to make the drive which usually takes an hour.

It's worth mentioning that the range was entirely unfamiliar to me. CVSC (the Dundee range) had learned at the beginning of the summer that their neighbor, a grape vinyard, was expanding its growing acreage. The range would no longer be able to shoot to the West because that's where people would be working. It's a tall berm, but not definitively safe when people may be working the vines on any given day.

CVSC has spend between $40,000 and $50,000 according to Evil Bill to re-contour the land on the range, pointing the down-range configuration on the most uphill 4 bays to point South, rather than West.

Right now the bays are gravel-topped with a lot of very tall berms. No way of knowing now how well it work when the rainy season comes; I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the water runs downhill and fills Bay 4. But for now, it all works fine.

My first stage was in Bay 4, which is about 20 yards wide and deep. (Measures are a guess, so don't take this as gospel.) I found The Hobo Brasser there, and shot the first stage which includes a 6-target plate rack and four US poppers. I had trouble knocking the small targets down. Hobo Brasser made fun of me, saying "you're suppose the put the red dot on the steel and squeeze the trigger!" He thought I had forgotten how to shoot an open gun. Not true; I had forgotten that I should not drink coffee before a match, because that red dot was bouncing all over the target ... on and off, and my job was to figure when it was going to dance over the steel and time that with my trigger so I hit the steel. No, I didn't do really good on tight shots, but I was doing the C-More Shuffle for most of the day.

It was a well-designed, and balanced match, but by the time we got to the 3rd stage I was feeling the effects of the heat and the sun. I worked as RO for the first 5 shooters on that stage, but then I had to hand off the 'brick' (the timer) and let someone else RO. I was feeling faintly nauseous, and that's the first indicator of Heat Exhaustion. (Heat Stroke is something else, often hits without obvious warning signs, and is a killer.)

When we got to the last stage, we gained the benefit of being the smallest squad in the match, with 8 shooters. Everyone had to work, but we got though stages quickly. Having arrived late, I was the last in my squad to shoot the first stage. But I was the first shooter on the last stage, so I may have been the first shooter to complete the match.

I didn't impress anyone, but by virtue of my late start and early finish I probably spent less time actively competing of all the nearly 60 shooters.

The Hobo Brasser and I had planned to have Lingquica pizza at Abbey's Pizza in Newberg, so we were eager to get off the range. But HB was responsible for posting scores on the internet, so we waited for over an hour for the other squads to finish.

Finally I grew tired of waiting, so I hopped into my truck and went down to where the last two squads were trying to finish the match. One squad had 2 shooters to go, the others had 4 shooters. I grabbed their completed score sheets and ran them up to the make-shift stat's shack. so the StatsMistress could enter them into the computer.

Then HB and I bailed out. Evil Bill agreed to email him the final scores for publication. I didn't care, I was tired and dirty and hungry (although happy!) and I just wanted to get my lunch.

As far as I was concerned, the gun had run reliably and well, I had completed the match, and I actually had a full magazine left over. Darn, if I knew I would end up with that much ammunition left over, I could have got to bed an hour earlier last night!

(Completed below under "Loading with the XL650 ... sort of (Part 2)" below.)

Loading with the XL650 ... sort of (Part 2)

After we left the range, HB and I made tracks directly to Abby's Pizza and a small pitcher of Heffeweizen.

Everyone else had either already left the match to go home, or they had only just finished the match and were waiting for the awards ceremony. HB and I have both attended hundreds of Awards Ceremonies, and while we usually stay to honor the winners, we had more important things on our mind: food and drink!

After the pizza and beer had been served, we talked about the match. HB related the story that on the last stage of the match, while I was shooting, one of the squad members commented that I had managed to shoot the whole match without a malfunction. (This was strikingly different from the last time I had shot the Open Gun, last October in Dundee, when a weak recoil spring had forced me to deal with a gun which would not return to battery ... one of the longest videos --- and most embarassing -- I have ever posted to YouTube.)

No sooner was the comment made, but the gun jammed. I pulled the trigger, gun went [click!] instead of [bang!] I think it was a high-primer, because I needed only perform the "Tap/Rack/Bang" drill and the gun performed flawlessly for the rest of the stage. Probably that would have happened even if nobody had mentioned that I was shooting a trouble-free match.

Probably.

But under any circumstances, it was clear that I had not the clear advantage of reliable reloaded ammunition.

By this time, it was clear that my Dillon XL650 was one sick puppy, and I was unable to use it to load ammo for competition. I mentioned my firm intent to sent the press back to Dillon during the coming week, because I was unable to fix the problems.

The Hobo Brasser chose this moment to offer to load 1,000 rounds for me on his own press, so I could send my 650 back for factory maintenance. He didn't want me to miss more matches than necessary at the dwindling end of the Summer Shooting Season. (In truth, I suspect he wanted me to shoot so that I would add an element of "Comic Relief" to the matches.)

Faced with this extremely generous offer, I hemmed and hawed around for about half a split-second and accepted his help.

The next weekend (now Last Dunday) I showed up on his doorstep with 300 rounds of new Winchester .38 Super brass, 1200 CCI Primers, and 4# of VV N350 powder. I also had a half-dozen rounds of loaded ammunition (so he could confirm the correct Over-All Length) and the range of power load for each cartridge, which was 8.0 - 8.6 grains. I also included an STI .38 Super magazine, which allowed him to make a final check on OAL: if it will fit within the magazine, it's not too long a load!

During the past week I have contacted Dillon via phone and got a Return Authorization Number, dismounted the 650 and sent it (including the shell-plate and the entire primer feed assembly, along with the 1050 handle) to Dillon via UPS.

At this moment I have about 26 rounds of (probably usable) .38 Super ammunition left over from my last match. I have also ordered another 1,000 rounds of Winchester Brass from Dillon, and when it arrives I will forward it to The Hobo Brasser. Along with the 1200 primers, that should be sufficient components for him to load 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

Not to put any pressure on but this year's Croc Dundee "You Got Bullets?" match has been replaced by a "Monster Match" at Albany Rifle and Pistol Club over the Labor Day weekend.

This match will require a minimum of 400 rounds, and I very much want to shoot it.

One of the problems with the Croc Match in the past has been the very tight schedule, which didn't allow shooters to pick up their brass after having shot a stage. This match announcement states that shooters will be allowed to brass at the end of a stage, as long as it doesn't delay the match. I REALLY don't want to dump 400+ rounds of once-fired brass on a range and lose it. Especially since the brass costs something like $200 for 1,000 rounds, including shipping.


So that's where I am right now. I checked the UPS Tracking Number on Friday last (August 6) and the 650 had got as far as Phoenix, Arizona. I assume it will be in Prescott sometime Monday. I don't know how long it will take them to fix it and return the press, but at lest due to the generosity of The Hobo Brasser, I won't have to sit out the rest of the 2010 competition season because I don't have ammunition.

Now all I have to do is relearn how to shoot the Open Gun.

ORM-D

From the Shooting Wire for Monday, August 2, 2010 (Jim Shepherd's editorial).

[click here to subscribe, if you haven't already.]

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), an organization for independent over-the-road truckers, has filed suit against the state of California for a law scheduled to take effect in 2011. AB-962, if enacted, will place what the OOIDA calls restrictions on the delivery of handgun ammunition.

In fact, the law would criminalize the delivery and transfer of handgun ammunition in anything other than face-to-face transactions. It would also require the shipper to determine if the recipient of a package containing handgun ammunition is covered by any exceptions in the law before delivering handgun ammunition in California.

The National Rifle Association, California educational and lobbying group Calguns, the Folsom Shooting Club and two Claifornia-based truckers and OOIDA members, Erik Royce and Brandon Elias agree, and have joined OOIDA in their lawsuit.

The suit alleges the law is unnecessary, being preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization act of 1994. The FAAA, the suit says, regulates the "routes, rates and services utilized for shipping and delivery or sale of ammunition to a person in California" because the provision "purports to regulate from whom and to whom carriers may make a delivery of ammunition in California."

Under the proposed California legislation, handgun ammunition would be clearly labeled . OOIDA says that law places unreasonable demands on carriers and drivers. Under the law, delivery drivers would be required to obtain a signature from the packages' addressee, determine the caliber of the handgun ammunition, and in some cases, even perform identification verifications.

That's not all. The law states that "transfer of ownership of ammunition may only occur in face-to-face transactions with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee."

The independent drivers organization raises the argument that many drivers don't know enough about ammunition to know what's handgun ammo- or not. And the requirement for a face-to-face transaction means the drivers - normally on a schedule- must coordinate delivery times rather than maintaining their work schedules.

And, the organization alleges, the labeling requirement places additional burdens on all involved parties. Ammunition, currently shipped under the federal label ORM-D (Other Related Materials-Domestic) isn't the only using that designation. Perfumes, aerosol cans, beer and other commodities also carry the ORM-D label-meaning drivers don't always know what's in the boxes they're hauling.

In other words, they might be breaking the law without even knowing.

The organization says it's seeking a permanent injunction from the law being enforced on "motor carriers and air/ground intermodal carriers and otherwise legal recipients of ammunition."

The "otherwise legal recipients" would cover virtually anyone reading this story.

"This isn't about firearms or ammunition," says Jim Johnston, OOIDA president, "We cannot allow California to subject our members to criminal liability where the state has no right to meddle."

Johnston is referencing a 2008 Supreme Court decision in which the court struck down a similar law in Maine regarding the delivery of cigarettes to Maine. In the Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport case, the Supreme Court ruled- unanimously- that states cannot interfere with a carrier's rates, routes or services.

We'll keep you posted.

Editor's Note: You can read the complaint from the OOIDA by clicking here

I can never equal, let alone improve upon, Jim Shepherd's editorials. However, I can offer the observation that this is just one more step taken by The Peoples' State of Kalifornia in their ongoing attempts to disarm the law-abiding citizens of their state. And I wonder, parenthetically, why the heck they are so afraid of their citizens. Could it be because so many of their citizens aren't .... citizens? And whose fault is that, eh, Mayor Gavin Newsom?

"Gun Control isn't about Guns; it's about Control"

Oregon CHL Privacy Rights ... or Wrongs?

I recently received a forwarded email from friend Marc, which seems to have originated from "The Jacobe Group" (an Oregon "Firearms Training" organization).

While I know little about the "group" (I have met Jim Jacobe) and I have not researched the bill referenced, I'll present the email "as received". I'll have a couple of comments at the end.

Note that all links and references were embedded in the original text; nothing has been added. Nothing has been removed or deleted, either, except the Jacobe Group banner which was included at the end of the original email. The intend here is NOT to recommend or denigrate individuals or organizations.

{Politicians fit in neither category.}


Before we start, here's the summary for HB2727:

SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.
Prohibits public body from releasing information that can be used to identify holder of or applicant for concealed handgun license. Authorizes disclosure for criminal justice purposes and pursuant to court order.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to records of concealed handgun licenses.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. A public body as defined in ORS 192.410 may not disclose records or information that can be associated with the identity of a current holder of, or an applicant for, a concealed handgun license unless:
(1) The disclosure is necessary for criminal justice purposes; or
(2) A court enters an order in a pending civil or criminal case directing the public body to disclose the records or information.

(Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Ten lines, no waiting.)

Here is the April 24 version, which I take to be the 'amended' version. Not 10 lines, but 11 pages ... includes the entire text of a CHL application, and 'exceptions', starting out with the proviso that it amends ORS 192.502 . In fact, it contains the entire text of the existing law, as ammended by this bill (look for the 'bold face' text). Essentially, it 'exempts from public disclosure' a plethora of public records, specifying exactly what information is and is not protected. Not a list of names, but details. Thankfully, at least Social Security Numbers are protected from exposure -- except in certain circumstances. The part which applies to CHL starts at the bottom of page 6.)

This appears to be the change in law, in the amendment proposed by Steiger:

(35) Records or information that identify a person as a holder of, or an applicant for, a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292. This exemption does not apply if the party seeking disclosure:
(a) Requests records or information pursuant to a subpoena or court order; or
(b) Shows by clear and convincing evidence that the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance. In making this determination, the custodian shall consider any information provided by an affected holder of, or applicant for, a concealed handgun license.

Comments about the changed text appended at the bottom of this page. But you'll have to search the contents of ORS 192.410 for yourself. The main difference seems to the wording in the second clause, which changes from "a court order" in "a pending criminal or civil case" (original text) versus "Public Interest".

But what is a legitimate "Public Interest"? Aye, there's the rub. And what does it mean that "the custodian shall consider any information provided"?


Here is the text of the email:

OFFPAC ALERT 07.29.10

CHL INFO TO BE MADE PUBLIC, AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Please help us retire Judy Steigler and elect Jason Conger.

As you may have heard, the Jackson County Sheriff has lost his battle to protect the private information of concealed handgun licensees.

The Medford Mail Tribune has demanded, and now will receive, the names, addresses, phone numbers and occupations of license holders in Jackson County. They may also demand this same information for the entire state, as can anyone, "newspaper," "reporter" or thief. (Many applicants included their Social Security numbers. It is not at all clear if these will be avalable as well.)

This info was demanded so the Tribune could "out" as many teachers as possible after the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation funded a lawsuit to protect the rights of a Medford teacher.

Most sheriffs have taken steps to safeguard this information from future snooping, but those efforts have not yet faced legal scrutiny. So for now, if you are a license holder, your privacy is very much in jeopardy.

There is no reason this information should be available to the public. These are not records of "government activity" as has been falsely claimed by the "Tribune" and the ACLU. These are records of private information, extorted by the state in order for Oregonians to exercise what should be a right. There is no more a need for this information to be in the public domain than should be your tax records.

In 2009, House Rep's Kim Thatcher and Jeff Barker introduced HB 2727 to make this data private. The bill had broad bipartisan support and seemed to be a sure thing, until House Rep Judy Steigler (D Bend), stepped in to torpedo it. Later Steigler blamed voters who strongly supported the bill for its failure! Steigler was also responsible for the death of a bill in 2009 that would have had Oregon recognize other states' concealed handgun licenses, a bill that was strongly supported by the Oregon Sheriffs Association.

In 2011, CHL privacy legislation will almost surely be reintroduced. But we need to do all we can to make sure Steigler is not around to kill this important bill. That's why OFFPAC is asking that you do all you can to help return Steigler to private practice and replace her with someone who respects gun rights.

Frankly, Steigler has done more to damage progress on gun rights in Oregon than even Ginny Burdick, whose efforts to attack gun owners have been almost exclusively failures except when she had millions in out of state money and the help of John McCain. (2000's Measure 5)

If you live in Steigler's district, obviously, you can vote against her, but no matter where you live, you can help her opponent Jason Conger.

Remember, the laws are made by legislators whether they are in your district or not. We believe substantial progress would have been made in 2009 except for the actions of Steigler and we hope you will help us replace her.

Conger has answered our survey 100%. OFFPAC is asking that you consider the most generous donation you can make to help send Judy home and elect Jason Conger. You can contribute directly to Conger's campaign here.

Comments on the content:

Personally, I don't see a lot wrong with the amended version. Again, I haven't checked the referenced ORS 192.410 and in law, context is important. Still, the differences may be more significant than they appear on the surface. Unfortunately, I can't parse the difference because I am not a lawyer. (My folks raised me better.)

When I followed the links provided in the original email, I noticed that most of them referenced the "OFF" or Oregon Firearms Federation. I know little about them; what I do know is 2nd hand, and not worth relating to you here.

But I did pay special attention to one post on that website, that which was referenced in the phrase "... Steigler blamed voters ..."

(I don't know much about Judy Steigler, either, except what I find on her legislator page.)

While I have to admit that Steigler's comments, if accurately quoted (and I have no reason to think that they were not), seemed dismissive of the person to whom she is replying -- and I don't have the text of that communication, either -- the tone of the purported email doesn't sound likely to have been composed by a staff which is concerned with the possible re-election chances for their boss.

On the other hand, I have no idea whether Rep. Steigler has a 'staff', or if they are sufficiently competent to protect their boss, or whether Steigler is the actual author of the purported email.

If she did, in fact, write the email it doesn't speak well for her judgment. But as I said, I don't know and I have not yet found a disclaimer on the Internet or on Rep. Steigler's website.

Steigler mentioned that the bill (to protect the privacy of Oregon CHL holders by legally refusing to list their identities to anyone, either a private person or a 'public' organization, such as a newspaper) "... didn't have a chance of passing even one chamber of the Legislature ... ". Truth or fiction? I have no way of knowing. I am not a politician (my folks raised me better) and I haven't been following the bill (HB2727).

The crux of the story seems to be this: Steigler seemed to think that voters who adamantly refused to allow public release of the information available from the office of Sheriff of the individual counties, relating to the people in those counties who have applied for and received a CHL (Concealed Handgun License ... or permit to carry a concealed handgun) ... were not only being unrealistic, but also obstreperous at a minimum -- and probably "part of the problem" rather than offering a solution which was acceptable to CHL holders.

In expressing her opinion, Steigler unfortunately used such phrases as " ... your caustic remarks ...", "... rather than solving a problem, you sacrifice the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of CHL holders to move a political agenda ...", " ... it is the efforts of citizens themselves which often keep anything from happening ..." and (perhaps most insulting) "... it is folks such as yourself that have doomed this bill ...".

In other words, citizens who have strong opinions should keep those opinions to themselves rather than to make their feelings known to their legislative representative. Apparently, knowing that a voter cares enough about the output of farm animals and legislators to actually speak their objection ... is objectionable to their representative. Or their farm animal, I guess, except that a farm animal has market value.

Would that we could say the same for our legislators.

On the other hand, we don't vote for farm animals, we buy them. Our legislators ... hey, maybe they aren't that different after all!

I hadn't planned for this to be a diatribe ending the same way the email did, but if we can't buy our legislators (the same way Unions and Newspapers can), maybe we should seriously consider voting the rascals out?

Politicians and Diapers have this in common:
They should be changed frequently, and for much the same reason.

Just saying ....

Ultimately, the question boils down to 2 points:

1. What are the real differences between the second clauses of the two versions; and
2. What is it with this State Representative of The People, who finds it so fulfilling to deliberately insult her constituents?
   

Midnight At the Oasis

Actually, it's 1am. I've managed to load 176 rounds ... and the last ten were like pulling teeth

I doubt that this is enough for the match, but if I run out of ammunition I'll just take pictures and videos of the other shooters anyway. The point of the game is that it's a chance to get out of doors, a little light exercise, get sunburned and be humiliated by your friends.

And ... the good folks at Dillon will be receiving a phone call from me next week. This just cannot go on. For the money, the press is suppose to work a lot better than it does now.

The reasonable suggestion, that I send it in for a rebuild?

Did that two years ago. It worked well for 3 months.

But I'm not going to let any of this spoil my weekend. I've check the pistol, ran a solvent rag thru it (which I did when I last used it) and did a little oiling. The batteries on the C-more are up and I have a spare in the bag. There's some ice in the freezer and water bottles in the refrigerator, ready to go in the cooler at 7:30 am.

A good (short) nights sleep, and then a pleasant hour drive to the beautiful Dundee Hills.

Can't way to see what Evil Bill has in store for us this time!
See you on the range.

Dillon Blues

I was very pleased last Wednesday when my order from Dillon arrived.

Mikey D. did right by me. I got the new Primer Cam, of course. The first thing I did when I ripped the package open was to measure the elevation of the old cam and the new one. The new cam stands 0.066" higher than the old one. Visually, they looked the same. But that shiny 'scuff' on the face of the old cam represents enough worn-off metal (I'm thinking) to account for its inability to rotate the primer disk quite far enough to index with the primer punch.

Dillon also sent me a new primer arm, and the return spring, and a "index arm bowed washer". Not to mention two new primer disks: one for small primers, one for large primers.

Since I had already replaced the primer arm, and the return spring, I didn't both replacing them. The "bowed washer" was still bowed (I knew from the inspection I made of parts the last time I tore down the primer assembly; last weekend -- twice.) And as for primer disks, they're good stainless steel and harder than rocks. No need to replace THAT.

So I just replaced the Cam on Wednesday night, poured a tall glass of ice water (it's 85 degrees out in the corner of the garage when the loading bench is), and settled in to make some .38 Super ammunition.

Yes, that primer cam made a difference. But not enough. I would get maybe one 'clean' primer feed out of 6 or 7, and the rest of the time I would have to fiddle with the darned thing. Sometimes the disk wouldn't rotate enough, sometimes it rotated a little too far. You can't tell what the problem is until you pull the case out and peer down into the guts of the thing.

Sometimes, it didn't seem to even try to bring up a new primer.

That kept me off the streets for a couple of hours Wednesday. I had loaded about 40 rounds of ammunition before I got frustrated, then sleepy. So I turned out the lights and called it a night.

Now it's Friday Night, 9pm, and I should be having a late snack and heading to bed sure that 200 rounds should be enough to get through the Dundee match tomorrow.

Trouble is, I've got about 50 rounds loaded. Not 200.

Finally I had a major jam, so I had to dismount the primer assembly to see what was wrong. Turned out one of the primers had turned coming out of the primer tube, and jammed the disk.

The new plan is to disassemble the primer assembly, thoroughly clean EVERYTHING, and then replace all of the old moving parts with the new moving parts.

Surprisingly, I had the whole thing cleaned, reassembled, and mounted on the Dillon XL650 in about 25 minutes. It shouldn't have taken me that long, but I had to sit a spell and admire the shine from my (almost) completely rebuilt gizmo.

Refilling the tube with another 100 primers, I started to work, whistling a tune from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs".

I didn't get past the first verse before the music changed, from "Hi Ho!" to "Night on Bald Mountain". (You'll remember that one, of course, from "Fantasia". It comes right after "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".)

I didn't have problems with the primer indexing a little short, or a little long. They weren't indexing AT ALL.

Hard as it is to watch the primer disk while my fat fingers are trying to load, but I finally realized that the primer disk was rotating just fine, and the primer arm was returning properly ... but it was dragging the disk backwards with it. Instead of the disk staying in place while the arm returned to pick up the next primer, it reversed the direction of the disk and dragged the new primer back to align the old (now empty) hole in the primer disk.

Hmmmmm. This calls for a serious re-think.

Also for a talk with the coach. I poured myself a short McNaughton's and phoned SWMBO. She was having a not particularly good day either, so we sat for a while and talked each other back to a more ... uh ... cheerful mood.

The McNaughton's didn't hurt, either.

But now SWMBO has gone back to "There's Nothing On Television" land, and the McNaughtons is naught but a smokey memory.

And I'm sitting here writing to faceless readers who will turn into giggling spectators when I try to shoot a 150+ round match tomorrow with about 100 rounds.

Don't know right now what I'm going to do. I can't see why the disk should NOT be dragged back from the arm, which means I'm going to have to figure out what this marvel of modern machinery was originally designed to do to prevent reverse rotation.

The best I've done so far has been to irritate the Gods of Alliteration, which is fun but not helpful.

No, don't ask me if I've cleaned the Open gun in preparation for the match. That was suppose to happen with the McNaughton's moment.

Stay tuned. The next article will either be a Reloader's Lament (later tonite), or a long and embarrassing story about the Saturday Match Which Never Were.

Why?

Because The Hobo Brasser has promised to loan me enough ammunition to finish the match. And I've assured him that "the situation is well in hand".

I hate it when he laughs. He sounds so ... so ... so Irish!

XL650 - Still Whining, After All These Years

SWMBO keeps telling me that we should just buy a new Loading Press ("We can use the same accessories, right?") and every male friend keeps telling me to "Man Up!"

But no, I'm a Geek and I will continue to do things My Way, regardless of the very good advice provided from Friends and Family.

HOWEVER: Taunted by the possibility that Evil Bill & Company will manage to establish a Club Match at the recently developer-challenged Dundee Gun Club, I have decided to try ... really, REALLY hard, to get enough ammunition loaded for the .38 Super Open Gun that I can "Match Up" before the next anticipated match on Saturday, July 24, 2010. According to the Columbia Cascade Section calendar, there WILL be a match this weekend.

And I want to be there!

Even Though I'm a Geek, the comes a point when I quit whining and I start doing whatever is necessary to get me to a match. That's the situation now. It has been a long time since I competed (a couple of months, at most) and very much longer since I competed in Open Division (October, 2009 .... nine months!)

Accordingly, I have made an effort during the past two weeks to fix the problems with my Dillon XL650, with the goal of loading ammunition at a more productive rate that one round per day ... which actually does not exaggerate my reloading rate during this "Blue Period".

The problem has been that the primer disk does NOT index correctly. That is to say, the primer disk does not line up with the primer punch, so when I try to down-stroke the handle, the primer will not be seated in the case. If you need more description of the technical problem, you don't have a Dillon XL650 and I will need approximately 3,000 more words to describe the problem.

Bummer.

Assume that it's a technical problem, and you really do NOT want to hear the details. Okay? I'm doing you a favor here.

Last week I decided to be pro-active, so I phoned Dillon Precision at their "order parts from the catalog" phone number of 1-800-762-3845. (I should have called them at the "I have a technical question" phone number of 1-800-223-4570 .)

I told the answering operator that I had a problem with my 650. The primer disc wasn't indexing properly and I thought I needed a new Primer Cam.

The guy I talked to doubted that I need the primer cam (page 47,part # 25) .. instead, he suggested that I needed the primer lever.

It's Complicated:
(If you want the gory details of the difference between the primer cam and the primer lever, call me. The point is, the primer CAM ([same link]Page # 48, item # 25, Part # 13630) is a standard attachment which pushes the primer LEVER [same link] Page # xx, item # xx, Part # 13909) until the primer DISC (Page # 53, item 15s, part # 134331) aligns with the primer PUNCH and the primer pocket of the cartridge which is aligned by movement of the base-plate (Page 52, Item 6, Part # [caliber specific]).


The problem is clearly discussed on page 42 of the manual under Problem Descriptions "E" and "F":

E. Rotary primer disc not indexing/jammed.
1. Check indexing lever and replace if
bent.
2. Inspect primer cam (#13670).
a. Missing.
b. Worn camming surface.
3. Powder debris on platform.
4. Stuck primer catching on shim
(#14117) and platform body.
F. Primers going in upside down or sideways.
1. Primer punch is not properly aligned
with the indexing shellplate.
a. Using old index cam (if purchased
machine prior to March 1995).

In this instance, the machine was delivered in December of 1994, and it has been used to reload over 250,000 rounds of ammunition. Clearly, the possibility of excessive wear on the parts must be included in evaluating the problem.

The Story:
Last Wednesday I phoned Dillon Precision and asked them to send me a Primer cam, because the Primer Disc was not indexing fully. The guy on the phones chortled and said "
I don't think you need that", and instead encouraged me to accept the Primer Lever.

Which I did, because he was the professional and I'm just a dumb customer who has let my Dillon XL650 sit for six months because I was pissed off at the stupid machinery.

I even asked for (and paid $13.00) for the "Second Day Delivery", because I wanted it in time to spend my weekend installing, testing and reloading.

The Weekend:
Last weekend I got home Friday Night and found the parts from Dillon in a FEDEX package on my doorstep. I replaced the primer lever, according to the manual, but it still didn't index correctly. The primer disk would be within a very few degrees of aligning with the primer punch, but I found that it was necessary for me to push up on the underside of the primer disk and push it to the right to achieve correct alignment. In fact, it was usually too much movement, and I had to re-adjust back and forth before the primer would correctly align with the primer punch, and the primer packet of the de-capped brass.

I wasted too much time trying to make this arrangement work, and finally I just .. gave up. I was angry, and disappointed, and frustrated.

Monday Morning:
This morning I phoned Dillon and talked to a different person. I called the 'problem number' (or 'technical help') and talked to a different person. I described my problem, mentioned that the Customer Service Representative last week and told me that I needed a new Primer Lever, not a new Primer Cam.

The CSR today just laughed and said "whenever you need to replace one, you need to replace both of them. It's like when you get a hole in your socks because your shoe doesn't fit; you have to replace the socks, sure, but you need to replace the shoe too!"

He went on to say that it was a standard response to this kind of primer-disk-indexing problem; they're on warranty, so send both the primer cam and the primer lever, so you only have to deal with the problem one time.

Dillon "No Questions" Warranty:
So the guy I was talking to insisted on replacing 'the whole thing', which I understood was just the two parts -- even though I had just received and installed a new Primer Cam.

I had some questions, and the big one was that I wondered when the parts would get here? I wanted to install the parts and load some ammunition before the weekend. The delivery was schedules by USPS, and I wasn't confident that this would fit my schedule.

"You know" I said; "I would really like to get the new parts in the next couple of days so I don't have to leave my reloading until the last minute on Friday. How about you make that "Second Day Delivery" via UPS?"

The CSR said: "Sure, but I'll have to charge you for the delivery"/

I told him "I paid for the 2nd Day Delivery last week, because I wanted to have the weekend to work on it. It didn't work out for me, but I didn't mind paying for the fast delivery then, and I don't mind paying for it now. Just get the parts to me in 2 days, and I don't mind paying another $13 to get the parts that I need, when I need them."

The CSR thought about that for about seconds, and replied: "You know, you paid extra for fast delivery last week, and we didn't send you the parts you needed. So this week, I'll send the parts you need via '2-day delivery', and the delivery is free."

I was a little surprised at this offer, but not so surprised that I couldn't accept the generous offer in about 1.01 seconds.

The CSR went on to say: "Okay, we'll send you the primer cam and primer lever, on warranty, and get them to you via 2-day deliver. My name is Mike, and if there are any more problems you let us know. Okay?"

I thanked the CSR and hung up, confident that this time the very expensive Dillon XL-650 would work for me as well as it did when it was brand new.

After all, I had the owner's word on it.

Mike.

Mike ... Dillon.

How many manufacturers have the CEO manning the CSR phone lines on Monday Mornings?

Well, one. One that I know of.

I'll keep you advised.

What's wrong with this picture?

On Election Day, 2008, citizens who attempted to vote at one precinct in Philadelphia were confronted by two members of the New Black Panther organization, one of who was brandishing a club and verbally intimidating voters. (See the NY Times article)

After receiving complaints from voters, the Justice Department pressed charges against the two demonstrators ... who failed to respond to the charges. At this point the Justice Department was on the fast track to win the case by default. In fact, the presiding judge ordered a default judgement against the defendents in this Voter Intimidation case.

Then Attorney General Holder's office instructed the prosecuting attorneys to drop the charges, on the basis that, based on evidence, the case should not go forward.

That is to say, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the men were intimidating voters .. despite the existence of a video made of the incident, and people were willing to testify that they felt 'intimidated.


Apparently the Obama administration, which was voted in during that election, didn't consider it significant that black people were intimidating white people at the voting booth.

Well, Black people cannot be prosecuted, in this country, for voter intimidation against white people. Only white people can be charged with, and convicted for, racial bias and hate crimes.

So what IS the Obama administration doing?

They are suing the state of Arizona over the state's SB1070, which will require Arizona police officers to check the credential of people they detain for 'other law infractions' to determine whether they are legally in the state ... and in the country.

The issue seems to be that Arizona, by enacting this law, has assumed responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws which are the province of the Federal Government.

The problem is, the Federal Government is not enforcing its own laws, and by its inaction the flood of "illegal immigrants" has proved to be a hardship to the people and state of Arizona.

On the other hand, if Arizona attempts to enforce Federal Law, they are infringing on the rights of the Federal Government. This seems to be the main complaint of the Obama Administration.

Outrage over the statute’s racial implications and debate over crime at the border have distracted attention from certain abominations the law contains. They are there, and they are numerous.

Chief among them is the statute’s own illegal entry into federal territory. Washington may be doing it badly, but controlling the borders is a federal job, not a state task. And while some state laws about immigration are fine constitutionally, this one isn’t.
...

The Arizona statute says police must check the legal status of whomever they stop or detain for any offense, however minor, if they reasonably suspect illegal status. Sidestep the argument over what reasonable suspicion means and notice that the law also says the cops can’t release a suspected alien until they confirm legal status.

That could take a while if every peace officer in the state of Arizona is on the line with immigration authorities.

If you can’t release suspected illegals until you confirm their status, this means you book them. Jails that are already overcrowded will be stuffed with people stopped for minor offenses who may or may not be illegal aliens.

How are these governments going to pay for more jail space? More cops? Police chiefs and sheriffs want to know.

If law enforcement is the least bit important to you, consider this, too. Any officer or prosecutor will tell you it’s tough enough coaxing cooperation from crime victims and witnesses in communities where illegal aliens reside.

Making immigration enforcement Job One for local and state officers will deepen fear within those communities. It will create and enlarge neighborhoods where no crime is solved, no criminal punished, no law is enforceable.

Well, the Delaware Online Website's opinion page seems firmly convinced that the Arizona law is both unconstitutional (although they don't make it clear in what way the law is unconstitutional ... wouldn't they have quoted the Constitution to make their point?), and apparently they consider the law unwieldy, expensive, and detrimental to the normal business of Arizona Law Enforcement Personnel.

On the other hand, neither Delaware nor D.C. have had to deal with the problems congruent with a flood of illegal immigrants.

When was a Delaware rancher murdered by immigrants? When was the last time a Delaware Deputy Sheriff was shot by drug traffickers from Mexico? Which was the last Delaware hospital closed because illegal immigrants were inundating the emergency rooms with requests for health services ... for which they could not pay, but the hospital was legally obligated to accept them 'anyway'?

And are there signs posted in the vicinity of Delaware's Southern Border stating that it is unsafe to travel there, because of the high volume of aggressive drug traffickers?

Arizona is fighting back. And they have already received over a half-million dollars in donations for their 'legal defense fund' .. mostly from people who don't even live in Arizona.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced today that she is creating a fund for individuals to donate toward the upcoming court date, regarding the law. Reportedly, 9,000 contributions have come in so far that total more than $500,000. Over 7,000 of those donations came from individuals outside of the state. The law has come under heavy fire from the federal government, and has been the focus of a number of different lawsuits. One of those lawsuits was filed earlier in the week by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The fund even has a web site: www.keepazsafe.com. Opponents to the law have said that they do not believe that immigration laws should differ from state to state, and that there needs to be one federal law to ensure that our borders are secure.

(link to donation site added)

_________________________________________

What's wrong with this picture?

Our border states find themselves obliged to "do the job that American's won't do".

That is, secure our borders.

We need a new President, a new Administration. We need someone who will do the job they were hired to do. The simplest expression of this constitutional imperative may be to "Ensure Domestic Tranquility".

Unfortunately, this Administration interprets this clause in the preamble to the Constitution to mean that the individual states will not upset the tranquility of this Administration.

And that's just wrong.

This administration should be charging and convicting people who deny citizens the right to vote without intimidation.

It should be the first line of defense of our borders ... not the unreliable and lazy "final line of defense".

And it should NOT be wasting time and resources by persecuting states who are trying to do something to resolve the Illegal Immigration problem.

What's wrong with this picture?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

_____________________________________

UPDATE: July 16, 2010:

Here is a Fox TV Interview with the DOJ whistleblower attorney who described the machinations in the Voter Rights Division of the Obama Department of Justice regarding the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation at a Philadelphia voting location during the 2008 Presidential Election.

Computer Problems

Haven't blogged for a while.

But I have a good excuse:

See more funny videos and TBT Videos at Today's Big Thing.

I think it had something to do with filing my taxes electronically.

McDonald!

McDonald Special Edition

As is true with most folks who read this blog, you are probably aware that the June 28, 2010, Supreme Court decision on "McDonald (et al) vs City of Chicago, Illinois (et al.)" heralds a new, and more traditional, interpretation of the Second Amendment.

And a lot of us like it!

It's not the 'whole answer', and there are still questions about what other restrictions may be applied to firearm ownership,. such as Registration. And the "Gun Show Loophole". And ... well, wait a minute!

Just what DOES that decision mean?


And in fact, just what does the decision SAY? And what were the points raised by the case, what was resolved, what was left for future legal gymnastics?

Finally, why was it a 5/4 decision by the SCOTUS, who ruled against the majority, and what were their arguments?

Whew! The more I read, the less I realize I actually understand.

Thanks to the Magic of the Internet, there are sources which can answer some, even many, of these questions.

In keeping with the Corporate Motto here at Geek Central: "We Surf The Net So You Don't Have To!"
(Either that, or we just surf the net anyway, and pass the good stuff on.)

Here are some good places to look for more information:

First the original link to this article was found at Musings of a Geek with a .45, and leads us to a "Zmag" article titled McDonald Special Edition.

I suspect this is not the best link, as it seems to begin in the middle of a multi-frame article.

Try this link instead. And remember it assumes you're smart enough to find the ZOOM control (look for the orange rectangle) and know to advance to the next page using the right-arrow. Okay, if you can't figure it out, just ... either go back to the porno channels or move on to the next article.

The above links (not the porno channels, the ZMAG article) discusses the dichotomy between the five "for the plaintiff" votes vs the four "for the defendant" votes, and the FIVE different opinions submitted by the nine SCOTUS judges.

Note that Chicago is working hard to undermine the clearly stated fundamentals of the Second Amendment.

The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people's hands.

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.

Other restrictions in that ordinance:

_ Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

_ Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks and requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the police department, much as sex offenders are now required to do.

_ Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

_ Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range.

_ Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every registered handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who have handguns, illegal under the ban, would have 90 days from the day the ordinance is enacted to register those weapons.

Registration? Well ... that isn't a big deal anymore, is it? Historically, "registration" has been the first step to "confiscation", but states (and cities) can't do that anymore, can they?

Perhaps not, but if Chicago requires registration, then what happens if you can't register your legal firearm because the mechanism for registration has "broken" ... perhaps even deliberately? For example:

The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983.

Remember that Gun Control is not about guns. It's about Control.

A Mosque at Ground Zero?

'10,000' throng to stop Ground Zero mosque

"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.

Americans all over the country are rallying to stop the construction of a Muslim Mosque at "Ground Zero"; actually on currently unused grounds near to the Twin Towers which were destroyed by terrorist attacks on American infrastructure during the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001.

Meanwhile, the man who proposed this project has been quoted as saying: "I don't believe in religious dialogue". PJTV auditing his American and 'other' statements has found "extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic..."

Many New Yorkers, and most friends and family of 911 victims, have attended public meetings to discuss the proposal.

The proposal was actually entered sometime before 911, and the prospect has been 'on hold' until just recently.
Here is a YouTube video describing some of the commentary regarding the proposed construction:

Although NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to be in favor of the proposal (latest word is that the city council has approved the project 29-1), many people suspect that the motivation is more than to approve a previously proposed project. Some believer that the construction of a Mosque on Ground Zero would represent the Muslim religion placing it's foot on the neck of a conquered foe. ("It's a stab in the eye of America.")
There may be some justification for this interpretation, as suggested by this PJTV video:

It's difficult to know what's "right", when one considers the anguish of 1911 families versus the lack of understanding of what any gesture may mean from the perspective of an Islamic fundamentalist.

Some think that it would be a gesture to reassure the Muslim populations of the world that we do not hold 'them' personally responsible for the 1911 tragedy.

Others believe that it would be an insult ... to the victims, to the American People as a whole ... and also an acknowledgement that Islam has, by the American permission, forced America to bow in dimmitude to the Islamic Movement.'

And one wonders whether the primary imperitive is for the American People to thus acknowledge that it holds Muslim followers ultimately blameless, or to allow Islamic Terrorists to boast of their conquest over The Great Satan.

Should this decision be left to the City Council of New York City?

Or is it a decision that all of America should share?

Having trouble deciding which should be the priority? Perhaps it would help to have more information about what this Mosque conduction would mean to the Islamic Society. This 11-minute PJTV interview with Walid Shoebat, a former Islamic Terrorist, may help to to understand the issues.

I found it helpful:

NRA and the 1st Amendment

Democrats face criticism from customary allies - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

This story has been around for several weeks, and I've been following it without comment because I wasn't sure where the story was going, nor on my stand on it.

There's a local talk-show radio host, Lars Larson, who expressed his disappointment that the National Rifle Association seems to have 'caved in' as soon as Congress agreed to exempt the NRA from the egregious requirements of non-profits.

Briefly stated, the bill ( the "DISCLOSE" act) was intended to counter a "loop-hole" in compaign contributions which, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCUSA) allowed Corporations the same First Amendment Protections as individual.

Essentially SCUSA ruled at the first of the year that Corporations could 'speak' about campaign issues, and publish these comments, with the same freedom as individuals.

Since Corporations typically have deeper pockets than most individuals, Congress thought their political comment should be restricted, especially in months toward the end of the campaign season.

So they fabricated a new bill which, if enacted into law, would impose incredibly burdensome reporting regulations on political speech. This bill was also directed at non-profits ... who usually (as in the case of the NRA, for example) have their own agenda.

The NRA objected, and since the NRA wields stronger political power than most non-profits (see the failure of Al Gores's 2000 Presidential Bid, where he couldn't win his own home state of Tennessee because of his anti-gun agenda), Congress decided that they could pass the bill if they could just buy off the NRA. Which they did, as well as several other Non-Profits (including the Sierra Club, the AARP, and the Human Society) which 'profited' by special exeptions:

"Regardless of your position about the legislation in general, we think you will agree with us that this special carve-out is undemocratic and dangerous," Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, wrote Tuesday to the leaders of more than 100 member-organizations. She sought signatures on a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing "profound disappointment and anger about the special treatment provided to those least in need of special treatment."

If anything, the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence was even more barbed about the concession given to the organization that arguably does more than any other to thwart his own group.

The special treatment for the NRA "is exactly why Americans are so turned off by politics and cynical about Congress," Paul Helmke said in a telephone interview. "It makes no sense at all when you say you're concerned about the role that money plays in politics."

The League of Conservation Voters also opposes the measure, according to a spokeswoman. Aron said the Sierra Club does as well, although officials for that organization could not be reached.

The developments left the fate of the legislation in doubt, according to Democratic aides who said the leadership likely would decide on Wednesday whether to go ahead with earlier plans to seek a vote by the end of the week.

The bill calls for new disclosure requirements to accompany campaign advertising by outside groups, which can now spend millions of dollars in often rough-and-tumble political activity without publicly identifying their donors. Democrats agreed Monday to exempt the NRA from its provisions after concluding the gun owners' group had enough allies in the House to bring down the measure.

The NRA issued a statement saying it would neither support nor oppose the measure as long as the exemption was a part of it — effectively a statement of acquiescence in the bill's passage.

So that's the back-story.

Our Mr. Larson was disappointed that the NRA was not willing to fight for the 1st amendment with the same fervor as they had historically fought for the 2nd amendment. And I admit, I was also. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA appeared on the Lars Larson Show to explain their position. I was unable to hear that show, so I don't know what the NRA had to say. Except, although this link may disappear, here is what LaPierre had to say.

LaPierre introduced himself (and the NRA) as historically strong proponents for the 1st Amendment. Larson said "Congress wouldn't have offered the NRA a ... thing ... without knowing they couldn't pass the bill without you?"

LaPierre said the Democrats could have rammed the bill down our (the NRA) throats. "We had to make sure that our gun owners were protected. We think it's unconstitutional, we think the supreme court is going to throw it out. ... this probably isn't going anywhere. .. they didn't give us anything. ... we didn't cut a deal ... but we still think it's unconstitutional. If it had not been for the NRA, this thing would probably have gone through two weeks ago. I represent a gun-rights organization, and I would be derelict of our membership if I didn't object to this thing." And he also said "we're the national RIFLE association! "

And he finally said that the NRA is intended to preserve the SECOND amendment.

(Continue listening to the Lars Larson audio comments, if they're still available, to hear even more critical comments.)

And actually, the recent word is that the bill is in deep, deep trouble simply because of the exemptions!

Not because of the 'large' (over 1 million members, been in operation for over ten years) non-profits were opposed to the bill, but because many other non-profits had been left out of the exemptions (including the US Chamber of Commerce) ... the bill is now in danger of not being passed.

For me, I would wish that the NRA would have continued protesting against this bill. But as LaPierre (not my all-time favorite person) implied in his interview, the business of the NRA is the protection of the Second Amendment. And by extension, it follows that the NRA is conceivably not strictly following it's own charter if it allocates donated funds in an effort to protect the First Amendment.

I don't like it. I've spent my entire life looking upon the NRA as my personal Constitutional Savior.

Well, perhaps not. My father and all of my uncles were Life Members of the NRA. I have not been, and in fact my NRA membership is lapsed. I am not a great fan of the NRA ... as I have said before and often for this sort of reason. The NRA is not a Constitutional Savior. It's all they can do the defend the Second Amendment, and they do little enough of that.

But here, the NRA is clear (if not by the Wayne LaPierre interview, but by the consequences of his "constitutional sell-out"), when the NRA signed on to the exemption it placed the spotlight firmly on the constitutional conflict inherent in this bill.

If the Democratic Congress had not decided to 'buy off' the Large Non-Profits, would this bill have been passed with little or no public comment?

I think so.

Here's a shocking thought for you to contemplate:

Who made the biggest stink about the NRA 'buy off''?

The Brady Bunch.

They had nothing to say about the bill per se, but they were so outraged that the NRA was granted an exception, they truly soured the dish that Congress was so assiduously stirring, to serve to the American people before they dropped us into the oven in their "Hansel and Gretel" Chocolate House.

Politics truly makes strange bed-fellows.

Who would ever believe that the Brady Campaign would support the NRA's true agenda?

The only thing that Wayne LaPierre has to offer to the membership of the NRA as that he is an accomplished politician. I'm not saying he expected exactly this outcome, but he DID say that he thought the bill was 'unconstitutional' and, with the list of exceptions listed, the bill is now a Poster Child for a constitutional battle.

I think the Democrats well be found to have become stuck in the Hunny Pot, and this is the lead-in to a depressing (for them) judicial refusal.

Anything that results in a disappointment for the Dems is a 'win' for America.

And you can take that to the bank.

USPSA Rule Changes

USPSA Rule Changes 0301101.pdf (application/pdf Object)

The Range Lawyers are Alive and Well, and ... well ... confusing.

The latest Columbia Cascade Newsletter (H/T "The Hobo Brasser") introduces New Rules from USPSA.


I suspect you will find them somewhat confusing. I know I did. Perhaps it would be best if we attribute the confusion to Friday Night Follies ("Yippee! It's The Weekend!")

Still, there are a few rules which are not intrinsically obvious to the casual observer. Most of them are relevant only to those who compete in Production Class, but some of them may affect us all.

Here are a selected few, and my first-impressions. I'm pretty sure I don't understand them, so if anyone has a better (or more authoritative) interpretation, I do, as always, invite corrections.

After all, I'm not an authority and this is not something that I had prior or background knowledge of the changes/improvements or the reasons why they were enacted.

And I'm assuming that these rule changes are definitive, official, and immediately applicable. This may not be the case.

Oh, and my comments only apply to the "Handgun Rules"; not being a 'multi-gun' competitor, I would not dare to comment on "Multi-Gun Rules".

...

1.2.2.3 “Speed Shoot”-Courses of fire consisting of one continuous string of fire not exceeding 16 rounds shot on one or more arrays of multiple targets from a single location or view. No more than 8 rounds may be required without a mandatory reload and no more than one mandatory reload may be required in the course of fire. Stage may be scored either Comstock or Virginia Count. See Rule 9.2.3.2.

Level II or higher matches are allowed no more than one of these courses of fire per every five stages. The total points available in these courses of fire shall not exceed 20% of the total points available in any match. Weak /Strong hand may be stipulated after the reload is complete.

Second Paragraph does not apply to "Club Matches" (Level I).

Do you not understand where the "Speed Shoot" designation applies? Neither do I.

In this, as with all succeeding rule discussions, it would probably be handy to have your current USPSA Rule Book handy.

(I don't intend to fully parse these rules. The purpose is only to make you aware that they are 'new', and to familiarize you with them in the general sense. I hope that this will lead to a fuller discussion.)

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit, are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:
1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.
2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.

The salient point in this rule is, I believe, that historically it has been permissible (especially in Club Matches ... see above) to score a 'hit' on a plate when the plate has fallen because of a hit which actually struck the supporting structure. After this rule is enacted, if a plate falls because the shot hit the thing-a-ma-bob that holds the plate off the ground, it's considered a REF ("Range Equipment Failure") and results in a mandatory reshoot. Which may grow tiresome, and expensive in terms of ammunition expended to complete a single stage.

This puts the burden on the stage construction crew to ensure that it's not possible (or at least, not easy) to hit the platform rather than the plate.

Three comments:

1. This is only determined if the RO cannot see the mark of a bullet on the plate, which directly implies that each plate MUST be re-painted between shooters;
2. The stage must be set up so that it is at least difficult, preferably impossible, to hit the support structure. Again, this puts the burden on the host club to insure that only the steel target is visible to the shooter.
3. This is obviously intended to apply mainly to plates; however, it is possible to hit the base of a Pepper Popper and shake it sufficiently that the popper falls. Again, the steel target MUST be painted between shooters to insure that this rule can be applied. If the RO cannot definitively determine that the target has not been struck by the bullet, the shooter must reshoot the stage. There is no other option available to the Range Officer.

5.2.4 During the course of fire after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/or speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose.
Unless specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing, a competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in apparel pocket(s) and retrieve and use them without penalty, providing that the location of the apparel pocket does not violate the requirements of Appendix D, Item 12 (subject to the provisions of Rule 6.2.5.1)

Yes, this is essentially a re-iteration of an old rule which requires the shooter to use the magazines in his/her "mag-carriers" before dipping into the pocket to get the 'back-up' magazines.

I'm not sure how or whether this is an improvement on existing rules, but it is clear that the intention is that the shooter uses ammunition carried on the belt before using ammunition carried in the pocket.

Pfaugh!

Sorry, I can't say this in a kinder, more gentle way: This is a stupid rule.

Not "stupid" because it's not a 'good idea', but "stupid" because it is unenforceable.

There is no penalty associated with this rule. If there is no penalty, there is no way to enforce the rule.

Is it possible to assign a Procedural Penalty for failure to follow this rule? I don't know why. Procedural Rules are enforceable only if the mandate to reload only from the belt ammunition-carrier is part of the written stage procedure. If it is written in the stage procedure, it doesn't need to be in the rule book.

Have I missed something here? I hope someone can tell me how, as a Range Officer, I can enforce this rule.

Don't bullshit me here, Boys.

9.1.3 Prematurely Patched Targets - If a target is prematurely patched or taped, which prevents a Range Official from determining the actual score, the Range Officer must order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire. However, if following the scoring of a target by any assigned Range Officer, the target is patched or taped by anyone other than a Range Officer, the score will stand as called regardless of the competitor’s opportunity to see the target in question and the competitor will not be permitted to appeal the score as called.

This is an odd one.

It sees to address a rare situation where the competitor doesn't follow the RO around during scoring of his targets, and challenges the score after the target is taped.

Okay, so we now that it's the competitor's responsibility to witness and accept the scoring of each target. Is this something new? No, clearly not.

As far as I can tell, it only circumvents the competitors ability to challenge the scoring of an individual target AFTER it has been scored by the Range Officer, and AFTER the target has been taped by the follow-up tape-apes.

Hmmmm. I suppose it's worth the effort to make a rule to prevent a competitor from challenging a call AFTER the target has been scored and taped. And it does reinforce the encouragement of the competitor to follow the Range Officer as he/she scores the targets.

Frankly, I have to fall back on the "Old School" injunction: "The Competitor Will Witness The Scoring Of Each Individual Target".

In other words: "If you snooze, you lose".

Okay, I can live with that. It just seems a shame that the situation is so common that it requires a rule to justify it.

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4).
See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.

I don't see anything new here, except for the last sentence. Again, I'm not comparing it to the current rules, which (if I recall correctly) require that all of the Upper A-zone or at least 50% of the 'main' A-zone of a target be available to hit for score.

But it seems as if at least the last part of the first sentence is missing here. It's not intuitively obvious why this rule is needed. Is it just me? What are the conditions under which "failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties" will be applied?

Perhaps my copy of the summary is defective. Or perhaps I am defective.

---

The rules about Arbitration may be significant, but I don't see anything that applies to most shooting situations. Ho-hum.

---

Appendix A3 Facing Uprange—Face and feet pointing straight uprange with shoulders parallel to the backstop.

Now, this is new.

I cannot count the number of times when the shooter is enjoined to face uprange, and he ends up with his body skewed to one side or another while his face is turned 'uprange'.

This is a welcome addition, or should I say "clarification", and I look forward to correcting the wayward competitor who thinks he has gained some advantage to twisting his body into a pretzel shape. It's silly to do so, but now we have a rule which not only supports the supposed "right way" to stand but also allows Range Officers to correct the competitor.

Still, it's a small, almost insignificant rule change because there is not that much advantage to be gained by assuming the Pretzel Position.

Add to Appendix D4 under special conditions: Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor should their ammo fail to meet the minimum.

Okay, this is another minor point which is apparently intended to enforce 'other rules'. I have no problem with this rule, other than to regret that it is necessary to enact it to further discourage violation of 'other rules'.

-------------------------

There are a plethora of other rules in this ... 'announcement' ... and you should go read the whole thing to determine your own interpretation of whether or not it applies to your own special situation.

Generally speaking, these are all 'special rules'. The most commonly will not affect folks who are competing for the fun of it.

Which is just another way of saying that these rules are intended only to discourage "gamers".

[sigh]

In my humble opinion, it takes some of the fun out of the competition. When you can't "game" a stage, competition loses some of its flavor.

Xavier Thoughts: Checking a Used 1911 with a Purchase in Mind

Xavier Thoughts: Checking a Used 1911 with a Purchase in Mind

My "old friend" (no, we've never met, never talked, and he is a friend' in my mind only ... but I have a great deal of respect for his writing and his experience) Xavier has written an excellent treatise describing the things to check when buying a 'used' 1911 pistol.

In fact, sometimes even 'factory NIB' pistols would best be evaluated by subjecting them to the same tests.

This is one of those "Gee, I wish I had written this!" blog articles. I couldn't have written it, wouldn't even try.

Feel free to bookmark it, and even to comment on it

I have.