We're not talking about camp fire cookies here!

Federal Court Says Connecticut's Aggressive Assault Weapon Ban Is Constitutional - Courant.com: By EDMUND H. MAHONY, emahony@courant.com The Hartford Courant 7:33 p.m. EST, January 30, 2014 HARTFORD —

Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.
 "The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.

What?  Do we now need another "Heller Decision" to ban "lookism"?


The crux of the court decision is this:

In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.

The salient fact which escapes lawmakers in Connecticut is that all guns are designed "to kill people".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

Getting back to Connecticut Firearms Registration Laws:

Connecticut firearms owners are revolting against the new laws.

Gun owners in Connecticut have revolted against a new gun control law, with just 38,000 out of 2.4 million high capacity magazines being registered with authorities.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, Connecticut passed a law which banned ammunition magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. Residents who had acquired such magazines before the law came into effect were mandated to register them with state police by January 1, 2014. The law also banned assault rifles manufactured after 1994, requiring them to be declared to authorities.

Weeks after the deadline expired, authorities revealed that 50,016 assault weapons and 38,290 ammunition magazines had been registered.

CT News Junkie reported that it is, “unclear how many gun owners own the banned weapons and magazines, but chose not to comply with the registration requirement.”

However, a 2011 Office of Legislative Research study found that, “there are over 2.4 million large capacity magazines in Connecticut that originated at the retail level.” This number didn’t even include those not purchased at the retail level.

With a state motto like "he who is transplanted, still sustains", and having elected Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden as your state senators, it's difficult for this old country boy to understand how you gathered the moxie to defy your state legislature.  But still you have, and we are proud of you for finally standing up for your individual rights.

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

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

Gun flight: Smith & Wesson, Ruger quit California over stamping requirement | Fox News:
(January 26, 3014)

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

Okay, everyone who didn't see this one coming, raise your hand.

What?  No hands at all?

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


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

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authorities: Argument over texting leads to man being fatally shot at Florida movie theater | Fox News:

(January 14, 2014)

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

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

More information  available here.

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

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

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

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

No, I don't think so. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

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

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

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

"Microstamping in California" - Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

en·grave  (n-grv)

tr.v. en·graved, en·grav·ing, en·graves

1. To carve, cut, or etch into a material: engraved the champion's name on the trophy.

2. To carve, cut, or etch a design or letters into: engraved the silver watch with my monogram.

3.

a. To carve, cut, or etch into a block or surface used for printing.

b. To print from a block or plate made by such a process.

4. To impress deeply as if by carving or etching: The experience was engraved into his memory.

em·boss  (m-bôs, -bs)

tr.v. em·bossed, em·boss·ing, em·boss·es

1. To mold or carve in relief: emboss a design on a coin.

2. To decorate with or as if with a raised design: emboss leather.

3. To adorn; decorate.

4. To cover with many protuberances; stud: "The whole buoy was embossed with barnacles" (Herman Melville).

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

---

But what about the firing pin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Microstamping" in California

Shooting Wire:
(January 10, 2014)

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

I have to admit to a certain amount of chagrin when reporting this story.

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

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

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

Silly me.

I should have noticed this May 19, 2013 article on the KDOC TV website:

LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- After years of delays, a gun law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 is finally in effect.

The law requires all new semi-automatic handguns to come equipped with a device that stamps each bullet with the gun's make, model, and serial number.
The law will not be applied to any of the 1,200 guns already on the state's firearm roster.
The law has angered gun rights advocates including the Calguns Foundation which challenged requirements of the state's handgun roster as unconstitutional in a federal court filing.
The law couldn't take effect as it was supposed to in 2010 because of patents on the technology, including at least one filed by the Calguns Foundation to delay the law's implementation.
On Friday, Attorney General Kamala Harris officially certified and announced that patents were no longer an issue. Former state Assemblyman Mike Feuer, who authored the law, hailed it as a "monumental day for law enforcement.

Perhaps I did notice it, in passing, but ... it was a flawed report.  The law didn't truly require an automatic ID stamping on each BULLET.

Instead, as more correctly reported in this May 20, 2013, article from Infowars:

In a controversial move that some believe will essentially lead to a de facto ban on semi-automatic handguns, Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that, effective immediately, all new semi-automatic firearms sold in the State of California will require a unique microstamp on every shell ejected when a gun is fired.

The INFOWARS article continues:

Microstamping, or ballistic imprinting, is a technology patented in the 1990′s by engineer and NRA member Todd Lizotte. When a gun is fired, a tiny engraving on the firing pin etches a microscopic identifier onto the cartridge as it is expended by the firearm.
The law, which requires every semi automatic gun sold in the state to imprint the gun’s serial number on the cartridge, was signed into law by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 and was delayed due to patent stipulations in the legislation.
The legislation specified that it would take effect only when the technology was available and all private patents had expired.
But at a Los Angeles news conference Friday, Harris announced that micro-stamping had cleared all technological and patenting hurdles and would be required on newly sold semiautomatics, effective immediately.

Please note the name Todd Lizotte; this was the gentleman with whom I held an extended dialogue on this view 'way back when'.  (Specifically, 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point two: the technology is not necessarily workable.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Here's the point

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

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

It's all Public Relations. 

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody in California wish to argue otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Obamacare hires new wetbsite contractor.

Obama administration to end contract with CGI Federal, company behind HealthCare.gov - The Washington Post:
(January 10, 2014)

The Obama administration has decided to jettison from HealthCare.gov the IT contractor, CGI Federal, that has been mainly responsible for building the defect-ridden online health insurance marketplace and has been immersed in the work of repairing it. Federal health officials are preparing to sign early next week a 12-month contract worth roughly $90 million with a different company, Accenture, after concluding that CGI has not been effective enough in fixing the intricate computer system underpinning the federal Web site, according to a person familiar with the decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss private negotiations.

Duh.

Too little too late. but it's significant that the obvious takes far too long to become apparent actionable to Obama.

Wonder where this story is going to go?

Police: Man stopped for speeding in central Ohio had dozens of bombs, remote detonator | Fox News: LONDON, Ohio – Authorities say they found nearly 50 bombs and four guns inside the vehicle of a man stopped for speeding in central Ohio.

‘I feel my whole body burning'

‘I feel my whole body burning,’ says Oklahoma death row inmate during execution | Fox News:

A man has been executed by lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary almost 20 years after orchestrating the brutal assault and robbery of his co-worker at a Tulsa convenience store. Michael Lee Wilson, 38, was convicted in the killing of Richard Yost, 30, who aspired to one day manage the Quiktrip store. Wilson, who was convicted of first-degree murder, was the third person executed for the February 25, 1995, crime; the fourth defendant is serving a life term.

Welcome to Hell, Michael Lee Wilson.  It wasn't your departure from this plane of existence you felt, but your arrival at your next (well deserved) plane of existence.

Before the crime, the men loitered nearly an hour while waiting for customers to leave. Once they were gone, they struck Yost with an aluminum baseball bat 54 times in 131 seconds. They jostled a safe while removing it, but Wilson posed as Yost when a security company called to check an alarm.
And to dampen suspicions among middle-of-the-night customers, Wilson put on Yost's uniform and worked the cash register as Yost lay dying in a pool of blood, beer and milk behind the cooler doors.
The state Board of Pardon and Parole last month rejected Wilson's clemency request on a four to one vote. Ahead of the hearing, Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Miller told the panel that Wilson knew Yost had to die so he couldn't identify his robbers.

Four men had planned the murder for a couple of weeks,  they beat the victim for over two minutes with one or more baseball bats.  This ... monster then acted as the victim to the security company and subsequent customers in the store to cover up the crime.

What did they get out of it?  A couple of bucks and some sneakers.

And now the murderer (who has had 20 more years of life than his victim did) is making a last-minute plea for sympathy because he feels a few moments of discomfort.

As far as I am concerned, this is full justification in favor of the Death Sentence for Capital Crime.  Why shouldn't the inhuman, unfeeling killer feel some pain at the end of his life?  We can only imagine .. but I hope we don't have to ever feel .. the pain his victim felt at the end of HIS life.

True justice would be that the murderer would feel the same exact pain that his victim felt.   I know, that would make us no better than him, that we would wish to exact that sort of vengence.

But it isn't so much vengeance as it is  a desire that every violent felon would be expected to experience the agony of his victims.  Justice isn't retribution as much as it is punishment.   And it is supposedly intended to dissuade others from following same unfeeling, uncaring footsteps of the  murder and mayhem that they read about in the media.

Why shouldn't this man person thing feel pain when he dies?

The best purpose in his short, unhappy life may be to serve as an example to others of his vicious bent.

UPDATE: February 03, 2014
Feminist Tammy Bruce seems to agree with my personal opinion on "coddling murderers" with a 'painless death'.

In a Fox News Opinion article, Bruce suggests that the death penalty be imposed by the Firing Squad.

As long as we are agreed that some people just should not continue to pollute our atmosphere, because of the enormity of their murderous choices, and as long as bleeding heart liberals are with-holding the chemicals which might provide a 'painless death' to convicted murderers, perhaps it's only just that we .. the public upon which they preyed .. quit trying to "go along to get along" and just shoot the murderous bastards.

At least they won't have false expectations that we 'respect' them.

Who will Guard the Guardians?

Obama administration proposes new executive actions on gun background checks | Fox News:

The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus. 
Vice President Biden's office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.

(HIPAA .. the "Health Insurance and Accountability Act" - ed.)

Discussion:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: there are people in the "Mental Health Care Industry" who are unalterably opposed to the possession of firearms by ANY citizen in this country .. with the exception of police and military.

Yes, I'm very much in favor of identifying nut-jobs who are so confused or despondent that they consider shooting up a shopping mall to be a viable choice.

I'm just not convinced that the people who are responsible for sending this information to the BATF (or whomever) are all that stable, themselves.

Pediatric physicians have been known to quiz children about firearms in the house ... without the permission or even supervision of their parents. 

Religious groups have publicly espoused their opposition to the private possession of firearms.
(See, for example, Presbyterian 101 and God's Call)

The point is, there are groups of sincere, caring, committed individuals who, in their professional capacity, have taken it upon themselves to advocate for (or against) social/legal, constitutional issues .. with the very best of intentions.

But how about ... Psychologists?

*(See: Take on Gun Lobby; AAP Firearms Safety [pdf[, and  AAP Gun Violence Policy [pdf],  and most egregiously  Advocate)

[note: "APP" = American Psychological Association]
Reference to an article in Psychologist Today

Gun control and a culture of violence is clearly linked.

Published on December 17, 2012 by Ray Williams in Wired for Success

 Any debate regarding gun control in America requires a serious examination of the culture of violence that exists in America, for this is where the real problem lies. It is not in 2nd amendment rights to bear arms or self-defense or crime, although these are issues the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. always hides behind. The real root cause is in the minds of Americans who may feel that a gun gives them a feeling of empowerment, and that they are entitled to have the power over life and death as well as the belief that if they want to they can take a life if they have been wronged (or imagined they have) in some way. After all, they see it glorified in the media every day.

(Emphasis added)

We have no issue with the conclusions, but the problem is with those sincere, caring, committed professionals who have individually concluded that ALL guns are bad, and that NO Americans can be trusted with them.  The very mention of ...

... 2nd amendment rights to bear arms or self-defense or crime, although these are issues the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. always hides behind ...

... suggests that those Americans who "hide behind" the U.S. constitutions truly have something to "always hide behind", rather than "insist of their constitutional rights".  As if it was something shameful, and needful of justification on a personal level .. such as pedophilia.  (I wonder if this psychologist discusses his pedophile patients cases as egregiously as he does legal owners of firearms?)

So .. what help can Psychologists offer to both identify potential mass murderers, and predict their behavior?

Here is an APA article from December 12, 2013 which addresses that specific question:

WASHINGTON — There is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will use a gun in a violent act — but individual prediction is not necessary for violence prevention, according to a comprehensive report on gun violence released today by the American Psychological Association. 
The report summarizes the psychological research that has helped develop evidence-based programs that can prevent violence through both primary and secondary interventions. Primary prevention programs can reduce risk factors for violence in the general population. Secondary prevention programs can help individuals who are experiencing emotional difficulties or interpersonal conflicts before they escalate into violence. 
"In making predictions about the risk for mass shootings, there is no consistent psychological profile or set of warning signs that can be used reliably to identify such individuals in the general population," according to the report, entitled Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy. For this reason, primary violence prevention programs are critical. In addition, at the individual level, a promising approach is the strategy of behavioral threat assessment, which involves identifying and intervening with individuals who have communicated threats of violence or engaged in behavior that indicates preparation to commit a violent act. 
In addition, the vast majority of people suffering from a mental illness are not violent, and despite decades of research, "there is only a moderate ability to identify individuals most likely to commit serious acts of violence," the report notes. When a person does resort to violence, that behavior is typically associated with a confluence of "individual, family, school, peer, community and sociocultural factors that interact over time," and appropriate access to mental health treatment can reduce gun violence, the report says. However, the availability of such mental health care remains "woefully insufficient," it adds.

[comments highlighted by italics have been emphasized by the editor]

Let's review some significant quotes:

• "There is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will use a gun in a violent act ..."
• "In making predictions about the risk for mass shootings, there is no consistent psychological profile or set of warning signs that can be used reliably to identify such individuals in the general population ... "
• "In addition, the vast majority of people suffering from a mental illness are not violent, and despite decades of research, 'there is only a moderate ability to identify individuals most likely to commit serious acts of violence...' "

Essentially, Psychologists cannot identify people who are likely to go shoot up a shopping mall, a church, or a school.

Yet even though  "there is only a moderate ability to identify individuals most likely to commit serious acts of violence ...", the Administration is most likely going to rely on these sincere, committed, caring professionals to determine who among us are likely to be a volatile risk factor for the rest of us.

Even though these sincere, committed, caring professionals admit among themselves that the have not the SLIGHTEST idea who among US are likely to become Mass Murderers.

I don't know about you, but I'm just the slightest bit concerned that these caring, committed professionals might find themselves "under the gun", so to speak, and feel somehow obligated to identify any of their patients who come to them with emotional problems and who have 'confessed' to owning a firearm as ... a "risk to society".

...

The APA has a Privacy Code, intended to protect their patients.  Without this code, their patients could not feel free to discuss their most private thoughts to their psychological care-giver.

Tenent #4" " 4.06 Consultations

When consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists do not disclose confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a client/patient, research participant or other person or organization with whom they have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure cannot be avoided, and (2) they disclose information only to the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality.)

 Adhering to this and other "privacy code" issues is left up to the attending psychologist.  Most professionals would consider this constriction in the context of other ethical tenets, and would be reluctant to disclose personal information unless such information might be critical to the determination of whether the patient is a threat to him/herself, or to another person.

However, this is a purely personal decision.  If the psychologist is one who thinks that the mere possession of a firearm is *(because of his/her personal bias) in itself evidence of 'danger to him/herself or another person", that caring professional mental health worker may feel .. if not obliged, but at least "free" ... to disclose the information to anyone --- and in doing so, feel free to be to be totally revelatory even though the common layperson may not agree that the patient constitutes a threat to society.


BOTTOM LINE:
When mental health workers are defined as "the last line of defense", there is a real and present danger that individuals might allow themselves to feel justified in 'outing' one or more of their patients, purely because of their personal opinion about "Gun Rights/Gun Control".

This puts the question squarely on the shoulders of one "caring, committed professional" whose opinion must necessarily be respected by Law Enforcement Officers.  The LEOs recognize that they have not the training and the neutral perspective .....
.... but do the psychologists?

We submit that just one politically motivated "sincere, caring, committed professional" Mental Health Care Professional has the power to devastate the lives of  countless law-abiding citizens for the mere 'crime' of firearm ownership.

Am I the only one who has a problem with that?

Nuns Denied Exemption from ObamaCare by Obama Administration

Administration to high court: Don't exempt Catholic groups from contraception mandate | Fox News:

The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court not to exempt Catholic groups from an ObamaCare requirement to offer contraceptive coverage, after the high court gave them a temporary reprieve earlier this week.

 Today, Obama revealed his determination to "remake the nation" regardless of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Religion.

We've already discussed the "Little Sisters" appeal to the Federal Government to 'please don't make this an issue' for them to decide between their Catholic Tenents against contraception and the Federal Law.

The Obama Administration says that if they don't want to include pregnancy insurance in their "Affordable HealthCare Plan", all they have to do is to fill out a form.

The group of Catholic nuns argues that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates their religious beliefs. To get around the mandate, they claim they'd have to sign a "permission slip" authorizing others to provide contraceptives and "abortion drugs" -- or pay a fine.

The bible says: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God's".  But are moral values the province of The Little Caesar?

Or is He just throwing his weight around?

I can't say her name

Hawaii woman with long last name forces state to alter ID policy | Fox News:
January 1, 2014

A Hawaii woman whose last name is 36 characters long has finally gotten the whole thing to fit on her driver's license and state identification card. Janice "Lokelani" Keihanaikukauakahihuliheekahaunaele has a surname that consists of 35 letters plus an okina, a mark used in the Hawaiian alphabet. She received her new license and ID after her campaign to get her full name on the cards prompted the state Department of Transportation to change its policy to expand the number of characters that can appear.

 Computers suck.

And computer programming sucks, too, because the criteria of the original program ALWAYS changes when ... reality interferes with the tidiness that programmers have learned to expect.

This lady is completely right to expect that "practices" and "procedures" must accommodate reality.

Are the officials in Hawaii going to issue new drivers' licenses which are six inches long?

No Problem!

 Sorry:
`A `ole pilikia




x
x
x

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns - NYTimes.com

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns - NYTimes.com:
 December 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing some religious-affiliated groups to provide health insurance coverage of birth control or face penalties as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Acting at the request of an order of nuns in Colorado, Justice Sotomayor issued the stay just hours before the requirement was to go into effect on New Year’s Day. She gave the Obama administration until Friday to respond to the Supreme Court.  

Although this injunction stay was initiated directly on behalf of specific orders of Catholic nuns, it wouldn't take much imagination to expect it would ... or should ... also be applicable to other groups who believe that portion of the Affordable Care Act (AKA "ObamaCare") should not be imposed upon them.  Examples include unmarried men, gays, Catholic nuns, and any other group which has reason to expect they should not be expected to be responsible for a pregnancy.

Which, to some of us (including widowed near-septuagenarians  such as myself) seems only reasonable.

Unfortunately, this issue may become something of a "Tipping Point" for ObamaCare.

If it is either legally or morally inappropriate for the Federal government to impose birth control insurance premiums on individuals who don't expect to face that health-care situation,  then why would it be appropriate for the Federal government to impose ANY insurance clauses on ANYONE who objects to them?

As is true in almost any civic law that the Supreme Court (or any of its individual Justices) take an interest, this is an "800 pound Gorilla In The Corner" which may react dramatically to ensuing events.  If the ObamaAdministration ... no, let's be honest about this ... if President Obama personally fights this action, it may lead to the entire ObamaCare law being opposed by the Supreme Court on more than one ground.

Note that previous challenges on the basis of constitutionality have already been successfully met and overwhelmed.  Specifically, the requirement that private individuals MUST adhere to federally mandated insurance mandates has been accepted because this socially tumultuous law has been designated by the White House and Congress as a "tax".  And Congress is constitutionally empowered to impose taxes on American citizens.

Now, however, we see that the law might be interpreted by the Supreme Court as violating the First Amendment of the Constitution ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

If Obama opposes Justice Sonia Sotomayor on this issue, that will open the door for opposition to the enforcement of ObamaCare by the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare the entire multi-hundred page law unconstitutional (and therefore unenforceable) until the question is resolved.  That is, resolved to the satisfaction of The Court.

ObamaCare has been walking on little cat feet, like a San Francisco fog, for months.  Now the Administration faces a challenge which it cannot win.  This is the strength of the American Constitution. The tripartite nature of American government ... legislative, judicial and executive branches ... have the constitutional power to stymie each other on the basis of legality and constitutionality.  While they have been careful avoid exciting the other two branches in recent years, Obama has for the past several months been striding boldly into areas where no-one has gone before.

This time, Obama may have tripped over his dictatorial tendencies.

It is the designated duty of both Congress and The Supreme Court to oppose the Executive branch when that portion of government seems to have exceeded its constitutional powers.  Congress has neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to oppose Obama's end-run on the right of The People to decide for themselves what level of health insurance they can afford.

Like the Second Amendment, it's not about the mechanics.  It's about the Rights of The People.

When the Federal government stoops to using taxes not to finance The Common Good but to impose The Common Good ... and makes us pay through the nose for the privilege of being Governed ... then there's something wrong with this system.

Not the Carrot, but the Whip.

This guy has lost all perspective.  It's time that someone said "Hey, wait a minute!"

Thank you for stepping up to the plate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Incandescent Light Bulbs Dead ... except for "Rough Service"

The man who saved the lightbulb | Fox News:
(December 16, 2013)

A modern day Edison has a bright idea: a way to keep the incandescent bulb burning brightly, despite a government law set to go into effect New Year’s Day that effectively outlaws the most commonly used lightbulbs.
 Most bulbs, that is. Not those made by lightbulb savior Larry Birnbaum. “When the government decided to ban incandescent lightbulbs, they left a loophole in the law. An opening,” Birnbaum told FoxNews.com. “What that was was rough service.”

So ... it appears that there IS an alternative to using Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFL), although the referenced article doesn't appear to include any information about availability or price.

In the meantime, we're hearing a lot of warnings about Mercury contamination if one of these wonderful new inventions should happen to break.  We're cautioned about clean-up and disposal of a broken ... or even intact ... bulb.

 Intact bulbs can be a headache to dispose of, too. In many locales it is illegal to throw fluorescents out with regular garbage, but the closest recycling or take-back facility may be miles away. (And, given the number of bottles and cans that end up in landfills despite the prevalence of curbside recycling programs, it seems likely that any barrier to recycling will make for relatively low reclamation rates; in 2004 the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers estimated a residential mercury bulb recycling rate of 2 percent.) Many municipal waste facilities and some vendors accept fluorescents; the EPA and Earth 911 maintain
online directories of collection sites. Among major retailers of fluorescents, IKEA offers to take back compact fluorescent bulbs in its stores free of charge.

And ... the CFLs can also cause physical problems, including skin cancer and migraines.  (That has less to do with broken or disposed CFLs than with their normal mode of operation ... but that's another story.)


One wonders, what do we do with a  CFL bulb which is not broken, but merely doesn't work any more?  Throw it in the bin with the rest of the trash?

I looked at my local garbage guy website, and they don't seem to address that question specifically.

However, they do have a category which includes Mercury contamination:

• Universal Waste
  This includes:
  
  

  • all hazardous waste batteries;
  • mercury-containing equipment;
  • some hazardous waste pesticides;
  • mercury-containing light bulbs.

  The RCRA Universal Waste Rule establishes a set of regulatory requirements for facilities managing universal waste, depending on whether the facility falls into one of four categories:
  
  

  • small-quantity handler of universal waste (SQHUW),
  • large-quantity handler of universal waste (LQHUW),
  • transporter of universal waste, or
  • final destination facilities.

  In addition, the The RCRA Universal Waste Rule establishes a petitioning procedure whereby additional wastes may be added to the universal waste rule.

If I understand this correctly, my trash collectors are not imposing any special restrictions on how I dispose of these "mercury-containing light bulbs".  They bear the responsibility and burdon of separating them from normal non-hazardous materials, and disposing of them appropriately.

That comes as a great relief to me.  "It's Not My Job!"
Also:  "Some Other Guys Will Handle That!")

Whew!

Wait a minute, all this stuff goes to a landfill located five miles out of town.   That's uphill from The River ... which runs through major  population centers in this state.  We're talking about the State Capital and the largest city in the state.

Won't somebody else be subject to the mercury poisoning?

And gee, what happens if the people up-river are just dumping their "mercury-containing light bulbs" in the trash, and they're being dumped in THEIR landfills?  What's to keep their Mercury from ending up in MY water supply?  Those  people are in the 2nd and 3rd largest cities in the state!

Isn't it odd that the Federal Government, which has mandated this national ban on Incandescents, haven't simultaneously initiated a plan for EVERYONE to know how to dispose of Fluorescents?  And regulations which required trash disposal companies to provide separate containers for these "household hazardous" materials?

Oh, wait:  The law was enacted in 2007:

Jan. 1. marks the end of a seven-year effort to outlaw the ordinary lightbulb, thanks to a 2007 law that raised minimum efficiency standards for traditional incandescent bulbs far beyond what the technology can manage.
It’s lights out for the traditional light bulb, in other words, which was essentially killed by that bill.
“The government started phasing out incandescents in 2010, starting with the 100-watt bulb, and then followed by the 75-watt,” explained Melissa Andresko, communications director for lighting-automation company Lutron.

(emphasis added)

That's a relief.  Now I know the Federal Government's appropriate response to this quandary:

It's Bush's Fault!

I'm back!

Okay, so you're not impressed by that title.

Keeping it uncharacteristically short,  please note that I went to Washington (the state, not the District) over the holidays to visit my son "The Squid Kid" and his family at his new permanent post.

I haven't seen them for two years, until they stopped by in the area over Thanksgiving to visit with all their family here.  They settled down in their new home in early December, and I spent Christmas with them for the first time "ever".

Yay!

The twin boys, 5 years old, don't really know me.  At first they referred to me as "That Guy" (as in: " ... Is That Guy going to be here long?")  By the time I left, they knew me as "Grampa Geek".   Or words to that effect.  At least, they understood that I was part of their extended family.

So I have had a wonderful vacation, punctuated by my usual frustration whenever I travel.   I missed the turnoff and spent two hours longer than necessary going up there, and coming back I hit a massive traffic jam in which it took me an hour to travel 1.5 miles.  But those are side stories.

I will now resume the normal program of ranting.

Thieves sell YOUR account numbers on underground black markets

Debit and credit cards stolen in Target breach reportedly for sale in underground black markets | Fox News:

Credit and debit card accounts stolen during a security breach involving retailer Target have reportedly flooded underground black markets, going on sale in batches of one million cards.
The cards are being sold from around $20 to more than $100 each, KrebsOnSecurity reports. The security news site said it spoke to a fraud analyst at a major bank who said his team was able to buy a portion of the bank’s accounts from an online store advertised in cybercrime forums as a place where thieves can buy stolen cards.
The analyst was not identified, but said the purchase was made before Target admitted Thursday that data connected to about 40 million credit and debit card accounts was stolen as part of a breach that began over the Thanksgiving weekend.

(We first reported this here on December 19, 2014)

Fortunately, I don't do my Christmas shopping at Target.

No, that's misleading ... I don't do Christmas shopping at all.  I'm less prudent than I am a curmudgeon, but apparently it's an Unexpected Consequence (or benefit?) of Curmudgeonlihood!

CHASE bank responded by putting temporary "restrictions" on the 10% of their accounts which may have been affected.  About 2 million of them, apparently. 

As expected, Target customers had trouble reaching the national chain's call center.  Many refused to shop at Target stores.  It's obvious that as much as it affected consumers, it affected the chain's profitability even more.  During this, the most frantic shopping period of the year, that could sound the death knell for Target.

My opinion, not fact ... but Watch This Space.

Personally, I tend to use debit cards rather than debit cards for purchases.  I don't keep enough in my bank account to cause fiscal ruin if I'm hacked.

On the other hand, my single credit card account does have protection plans.

Last year I reported that my credit card had been hacked.  Some $1500 had been used for what seemed to be "charitable contributions"   (presumably accounts set up by the hackers to accept stolen funds).  When I noticed the charges the day after they occurred, I notified my Credit Card Vendor and they cancelled the account, deleted the charges, and sent me a new credit card.  It was upsetting, and inconvenient ... but didn't cost me a penny after I reported and challenged the charges.

Unfortunately, not all bank debit cards offer the same kind of protection.

TARGET was responsible in reporting the problem immediately after they discovered the deception, and they are presumably taking steps to prevent its recurrance.

On Friday, Target reiterated that the stolen data included customer names, credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates and the embedded code on the magnetic strip found on the backs of cards, Target said.
There was no indication the three- or four-digit security numbers visible on the back of the card were affected, Target said. It also said Friday there was no indication that the stolen data included a customer's birth date or social security number. The data breach did not affect online purchases, the company said.
Target also said it didn't believe that PIN numbers to customers' debit cards have been compromised.

 That's a single ray of hope for consumers whose card numbers have been compromised.

My credit card company offers a 'notification service'; when they see a charge which does not seem to match their customers' normal shopping patterns ... they hold the transaction and contact me personally to confirm that the transaction is legitimate.  That's a responsible way to manage an account, if you're a credit card company.  So far, all of the transactions which they have notified me about have been legitimate.  I can only assume that the two "bogus" transactions had not yet tripped their BS-ometer before it tripped mine.  (Considering that the two charges totaled over $1,200, it's a good argument for credit card holders to regularly monitor their own account!)

And yes, I did check my credit card account ... my only charges since my last payment are only purchases which I recognize.

Can you say the same about your own credit account?  May I suggest that you check it ..... now?


x
x
x

Protective Eyeware

Seattle girl escapes serious injury when bullet hits glasses - U.S. News:
By Jonathan Kaminsky, Reuters

A teenage girl avoided serious injury when her glasses deflected a bullet fired during a drive-by shooting at her Seattle home, police said on Sunday. 
The 16-year-old girl was asleep on her living room couch at about 9:40 p.m. local time on Saturday when shots were fired from a dark-colored sedan as it passed her house, Seattle police spokesman Detective Mark Jamieson said. Several bullets went through the walls of the house and one through the front window, Jamieson said. 
One of the bullets struck the bridge of the teen's glasses, Jamieson said. She suffered only minor injuries and was treated at a local hospital, he added.

 People sometimes question what KIND of protective eyeware is appropriate when on the range.  As the accompanying article illustrates, ANYTHING is better than nothing.

Certainly, they should be impact-resistant. That's the first criteria for choosing safety glasses which are appropriate for wear on a shooting range.   Of course, any brittle material is limited to the amount of resistance they can provide, which is why Polychromate* POLYCARBONATE materials are among the first choices for shooters who want to protect their eyes from injury.


Yes, they should be shatterproof, too.  You don't want shards of glass poking out of your eyeball when the integrity of the lenses is interrupted by impact, either by a bullet or rocks from the berm or even a piece of brass as ejected from the breach of a semi-automatic pistol.  That's why Polycarbonate materials are preferable to, say "tempered glass".  They're made of plastic, which means "bendable".  So, even though they may dent or bend or even break, they are less likely than glass to actually shatter.

Finally, they should protect the eyes from impact from the sides, not just from the front. Ricochets may come from any direction, so if you can see the source of the object, that object may hit your eye.  This makes it important to you to choose frames which continue this protection in directions other than straight ahead.  Wrap-around frames (such as Smith&Wesson "38 special" offers) allow not only heavy frames, but the lenses also wrap around so that you retain peripheral vision.
        

Other considerations are price (the S&W example costs less that $12 .. they're affordable), protection from sun, glare, reflection and UV (many polycarbonate lenses are available in a variety of coatings), and style.

Also, some of us have vision problems such as astigmatism near-sightedness and far-sightedness.  Opticians have become increasingly aware of these concerns, so it is possible that your own optician can offer you prescription glasses using "safety glass" materials.

If that's not your first choice, there are also glasses which are made to allow you to grind lenses to your prescription and insert them into frames which are designed to accept inserted lenses ... or "RX INSERTS".   These are usually heavier frames, sometimes "goggles" and may not suit your sense of style.  However, they do allow a combination of materials and vision which are not readily available from other options at a price which fits your budget.

You may have noticed that STYLE is not the first criteria here.   Well, styles change, and if you want to spend the money you can get STYLISH safety glasses which meet all your needs and your "wants", too.   However, not everyone can readily afford to spend extra money for style when their primary need is safety.

Also, your vision requirements may change as well, which means that every time you have to order a new prescription, you have to spend a lot to replace your old glasses.

As an example, I offer my own changing visual requirements.

I am "far sighted", which means I can see just fine past about five feet but about 20 years ago my eyes changed so much that I need special lenses in order to read comfortably.  Ten years ago, I could no longer get a clear image of my front sight, even when my arms were fully extended.  That was when I had to change from sunglasses to bifocals.  I can see the front sight clearly through the lower half of the lenses, and the target is only slightly blurred at distances far enough that it matters. I can see the targets clearly through the upper half of the lenses.  I have the option of choosing to use the lower lenses for far targets, or the upper lenses for the near targets, so I've learned to just tilt my head to get the best compromise .. a perfect sight picture, or 'good enough for close work'.

I shoot right-handed, but I am left-eye dominant.  I've learned to handle that but it makes the choice of which lens of which EYE to use in sighting ... again, based on distance.

Now, my vision is again changing.  Vision in my dominant left eye has changed to the point where now my RIGHT eye is dominant!   I had to change my prescription and order a new set of glasses .. at $480 for the set.

My glasses are NOT strictly speaking, made of "Polycarbonate".  Instead, they are "Trivex".

Click the link for specific comparison of "Polycarbonate" vs "Trivex" lenses, but for a quick summary:

Trivex thicker, but lighter, so provides more protection for less overall weight; provide "crisper" optics, both 'central' and 'peripheral';  usually more expensive; comparable impact resistance and coatings (eg: UV protection).  Also, Polycarbonate lenses are available in a "wider variety of ... progressive lenses and multifocals".

On the other hand, my bifocals works work just fine for me.  Given that I hate wearing glasses ... but "need" to ... it was my choice to go for the more expensive lenses so that I didn't have to buy one pair of glasses for shooting, and another pair of glasses for my daily wear.  I have comfort day-by-day, and I don't have to compensate/compromise comfort for safety when I go shooting.  Yes, it costs more, but when I'm shooting I am wearing EXACTLY the same glasses I wear every day, so I'm not distracted from my accuracy by looking through lenses which are uncomfortable or unfamiliar.

Your choice may not be the same, and that's fine.  If we were not individualists, we would probably not be shooting IPSC matches as often as we can .. or can afford to .. or can find materials to reload our ammunition.

But that's a topic for another discussion.

___________________________

* POLYCHROMATE vs POLYCARBONATE

A final word.

I often use the terms POLYCHROMATE and POLYCARBONATE interchangeably.  That's wrong.

POLYCHROMATE:

n.	1.	(Chem.) A salt of a polychromic acid.
	1.	(Chem.) A compound which exhibits, or from which may be prepared, a variety of colors, as certain solutions derived from vegetables, which display colors by fluorescence

POLYCARBONATE:

Any of a class of thermoplastics characterized by high-impact strength, light weight, and flexibility, and used as shatter-resistant substitutes for glass.

If you, like me, are sometimes confused by the similarity of compound words ... the word we're looking for here is POLYCARBONATE!

A Merry Christmas Day

Kids Lip-Syncing A Wonderful Christmas Song:

Kids stealing the show, literally, with a so cute lip-sync routine for the holidays. The boy who does bass really gets into it! This was of the many fantastic songs performed during the annual "Living Christmas Tree" performance at the Florence Baptist Temple in Florence, South Carolina. A gospel quartet's van broke down nearby and the quartet took to the stage with this hilarious performance. Be sure to share so you to can "spread joy" to others.

Oh my, we are getting into the Christmas Spirit now.

As is often the case the Hat-Tip goes to The G-man, who somehow manages to find the most interesting videos on the Internet.

I, on the other hand, don't promise to NOT get all grouchy before the holidays are over.  I can only hope that you can enjoy THIS, and recognize that even though I'm probably going to be ranting about things like all-lead bullets being banned nationwide .... it IS The Season To Be Jolly.

Ho.  Ho. Ho.

Definition of the term "Selfie"

Barack Obama Caught Taking a Selfie at Nelson Mandela’s Memorial | OK! Magazine:

Eeek. It’s already an entry for that tumblr, Selfies at Funerals. Obama was photographed taking his own photograph with none other than British Prime Minister David Cameron and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt. They were in attendance at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service in Johannesburg at the time, at which Obama gave a speech. Probably not the best time, guys?