"Shall Issue" in Minnesota

Last Saturday (September 16, 2006, "It's news, but it's not NEW news!") I talked about the Minnesota Concealled Carry Laws as reported in the New York Times.

Since it was an 'archived article', the NYT was holding the article for ransom; they wanted me to give them $4.50 to read the darned thing. Heck, the same article is lining bird cages and wrapping dead fish all over the country for a whole lot less than that.

Fortunately, reader P.G. sent me the copy of the article which HE had downloaded.

I can do no less but to return the favor to you in this private email (not for reprint or publishing):

New York Times - September 5, 2006
Editorial Observer
Once a Progressive State, Minnesota Is Now a Fief of the N.R.A.
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Correction Appended

A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: "Firearms Banned on These Premises." The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.

Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a "concealed carry" law, which means that it's legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a "shall require" state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you.

I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a "shoot first" bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked.

There are some other twists to these laws. A person carrying a concealed weapon cannot be banned from a public building, even if it's a library full of kids. Churches have succeeded in keeping guns out of the pews, but they're having to fight another court battle to keep them out of the parking lot. The application for a concealed-weapon permit appears to have been created by people who believe the real threat in carrying a gun is the loss of privacy entailed in filling out the form. Yet it isn't possible for a member of the public to find out who has received a permit and may, in fact, be packing heat.

This is what I'd expect of Florida, which recently passed a "shoot first" -- also called a "shoot the Avon lady" -- bill. I'd expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. -- the Democratic Farmer Labor Party -- and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I'm thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist's orders, I was too young to know.

I grew up hunting and shooting, and I still own two rifles (a .22 and a .270) and two shotguns (a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge, to be specific). When I was young, I expected that I would own guns when I grew up because I enjoyed hunting and I liked the good hunters I knew -- as I still do.

But to me, owning guns and knowing how to use them properly was part of a civic bargain. I would leave the police work to the police, and they would leave the squirrel hunting to me. The notion that 38 states would have "concealed carry" laws in 2006 would have seemed insane, a regression to a more primitive idea of who we are.

The N.R.A. would argue that society has changed since those innocent days. But society hasn't changed nearly as much as the N.R.A. has -- or our ideas about the balance of individual and collective rights.

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

But there's a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual's rights -- in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library -- all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

What's worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know they're not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend they're cops.

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn't really about guns at all. It's about making certain that the public -- our political and civil society, in other words -- has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the "concealed carry" and "shall require" and "shoot first" laws says.

Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the "concealed carry" law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.

Correction: September 9, 2006

In an Editorial Observer article on Tuesday about Minnesota's gun laws: The law requires that local authorities "shall issue" concealed weapons permits when properly applied for. The article used the incorrect phrase "shall require" to describe this policy.

About the "correction" which NYT issued after the original publication (and obviously after they had received a lot of mail from outraged 2nd Amendment folks who knew what they were talking about.)

Yes, they noted that the correct term is "shall issue" rather than "shall require". That's nice.

But they missed one other unfortunate choice of words, here:

If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must
grant it to you.

The problem is with the word "grant", as you may gather from the fact that I have italicized the word in the quote.


Here's what the word "grant" means, according to the InfoPlease online dictionary:
grant

Pronunciation: (grant, gränt), [key]
—v.t.
1. to bestow or confer, esp. by a formal act: to grant a charter.
2. to give or accord: to grant permission.
3. to agree or accede to: to grant a request.
4. to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point.
5. to transfer or convey, esp. by deed or writing: to grant property.
6. take for granted,
a. to accept without question or objection; assume: Your loyalty to the cause is taken for granted.
b. to use, accept, or treat in a careless or indifferent manner: A marriage can be headed for trouble if either spouse begins to take the other for granted.

—n.
1. something granted, as a privilege or right, a sum of money, or a tract of land: Several major foundations made large grants to fund the research project.
2. the act of granting.
3. Law.a transfer of property.
4. a geographical unit in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, originally a grant of land to a person or group of people.

Looking at the Verb Transitive form of the word, it implies that the issuing authority will "grant" a license out of the goodness of their collective bureaucratic hearts. You know and I know that this is hardly the case. You know and I know that bureaucrats have no hearts. They do what they are required by law to do, and not one step further.

(Pay not attention to the Noun form of the word, which is not applicable as it is obviously not intended in the context of the sentence. I only include it to make the following point.)

The bureaucrats won't "grant" you the right to own a weapon. God granted that right, as is made clear in the Constitution of the United States and enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Especially it is defined in the Declaration of Independence.

Read these words in the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...

These words are the reason why the Constitution was created, and especially they are the reason why the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution are called "The Bill Of Rights".

Soap Box Mode /ON

Bureaucrats don't "Grant" you a license. They "Issue" it. And they only do so because they have no choice. Some large group of private citizens have recently devoted their time and effort to ensure that they are obliged to issue that license to carry a concealed weapon; a RIGHT that should not have been necessary after we (or rather our forefathers, who are probably not related to most of us but we are lucky enough to be citizens of the country which they founded) fought and too often died for.

Soap box mode /OFF

The upshot of it is, when this newspaper article says that " ... the local authorities must grant it to you ...", the author is demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of the primary documents justifying this radical form of government.

This is no reflection on that author; to paraphrase someone else, we hear the same stuff from The Supremes, people who go to work wearing black bathrobes.

And they accuse bloggers of going to work in their pajamas, as if that's A Bad Thing.

(Dirgression Alert: they have no idea how many of us don't bother with the bathrobe, but that's another subject.)

I long to fisk this article. The author shows such contempt for individual rights, and is so arrogant in his (?) assurance that he knows better than you what personal danger is represented in your environment, that nearly every paragraph outrages irritates me.

The use of loaded phrases ("bear arms in the library" and "shoot the Avon lady") and placing quotes around previously defined phrases ("concealed carry" and "shall require") are yellow journalism at its best. Or at its worse, depending on your level of journalistic venality.

Yes, I realize it's an "editorial", and as such is assumed to be an opinion article -- which doesn't subject the author to the same constraints as a straight news article.

But consider this statement:

"Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have."

It presupposes that all police officers are better trained than any owners of a concealed carry license, and implies that police officers must abide by restrictions which are not imposed by private citizens who are licensed to carry. These are not necessarily universally applicable, which fact is cheerily ignored by the author.

In point of fact, police officers have fewer restrictions upon arms-bearing, and if they are obliged by circumstances to use those arms in the defense of self or others, they have a built-in defense superstructure in the form of the P.A.L. and the patina of assumed authority.

"Civilians" (an egregious term often used by police officers, which supposes an "us versus them" relationship with respect to non-police officers) have no support mechanism in place. If non-police officers use a firearm in defense, they bear the entire expense of defending themselves in court. Rather than being placed "off duty with pay, pending review" they are likely to find themselves in the hoosegow waiting for their turn at the public phone, where they can call their lawyer while fending off the advances of semi-permanent hoosegow denizens.

Nobody who has worked and paid for the 'grant' to exercise his rights to carry a firearm, and who has exercised that right, will do so unless the most extreme pressures of the moment demand it.

This article is written from a single, extreme point of view by a person who has an agenda to promote.

But then, you already knew that.

PS:

Remember this?

Soap box mode /OFF

Apparently, I was premature in my declaration.

Sorry about that.

2006 Croc Match: The A-team

I didn't get as many really HOT videos of the 2006 Croc Match as I had wanted, so I've been pretty low-key about presenting pictures and videos of the excellent, hi-round-count match as I should.

That is, until I received a link to this YouTube Video from Norm the Ungrateful.

Production values and resolution on this 5:07 minute video are extremely good. I only received the link from Norm an hour ago, and in the meantime I've written this paen to his excellence both as a competitor and as a video editor, plus I've watched the video at least a dozen times.

I'll watch it a dozen times again, and in absolute awe.

I've not seen many videos which so perfectly demonstrate the fast-shooting, target rich environment nature of of this exceptional match as this.

When I get the code for this hot-music, hot-shooting video from Norm, I'll include it here so you can click-and-watch the action.

Until then, you'lll just have to content yourself with double-clicking what I consider to be one of the premier videos in IPSC competition to date.

Participants include Norm, Zac, Chuck, Yong Lee and Glenn.

"427 rounds in 2 days". You only have to see the followers-on about1:40 into the film to realize how awesome these performances really are. The video is a great demonstration of how FAST you have to shoot to win at this level of competition. The music is perfectly choreographed to support the action. Don't be fooled by the slow start; it sets up the viewer to truly appreciate the movement/very quick target engagement. To be able to shoot this fast, and still get hits ... that is the epitome of IPSC competition.

Fasssst action, perfect reload after perfect reload, and an implict understanding on the part of the competitors that speed wins. These are the components of a excellent IPSC video, and Norm has it all.

If you never watch another IPSC video this year, you have GOT to see this one.

If you have never shot the Banzaii Ballistic ("You Got Bullets?") Croc Match before, you have to be saying to yourself:

"Next Year in Dundee!"

Proud Grandfather

You'll have to bear with me for a bit here.

I've just become a grandfather for the fifth time.

My daughter, Jennifer, just gave birth to her second child, Jack.

(Son Ben has three children: Lizzie, Connor and Jacob.)

I don't yet have pictures of the new grandchild, and maybe I can resist the impulse to display them here ... newborns yield photos which are only of interest to the immediate family.

But I do have pictures of Jennifer, and her 'little brother' Ben.


Jennifier and Benjamin were born on the same day (July 30), two years apart. So, for her second birthday, Jennifer received a brother.

She wasn't sure what to do about that, at first.


Eventually, she figured it out.

They've been each other's "Best Friend" ever since.


When they each found someone to marry, they have provided me with a steady stream of grandchildren.

This is ALWAYS a reason to celebrate, so please join me now as I welcome little Jack.

Now we can only hope that his Big Sister, Samantha, appreciates him as much as her mother did HER brother.

Sunday Night Funnies

The Urban Acrobatics videos are becoming daily more prevelant. Some of them are excellent. This one has a "theme" .... The Chase, from Bore Me dot Com.

Here's one without the theme. Note: background lyrics not 'work friendly'.

Think deoderants are boring?

In case there is any computer-owner in the Western Hemisphere who hasn't yet seen the Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments .....

More leaping tall buildings in a single bound. I've seen this guy before. (lousy video quality, but still impressive.)

But if you don't know what you're doing, don't try this at home!

Of course, you can still get hurt just driving down the street, minding your own business. Watch the big red truck with the white, too-long trailer. Don't worry, we've got a fix for excess trailer length.

But remember, whether you enjoy the ride or not ... don't expect any sympathy from your mother.

It was technical service response calls like this that caused me to switch from AOL to ... almost anybody.

For those masochists among us, here is a 32 minute film featuring the 9/11 conspiracy theorist barking moonbat David Ray Griffin (9-24-2005).

Should you watch it? The moderator is Representative Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. Use your own judgement. (No, I couldn't get through it either.)

By the way, here is the Popular Mechanics refutation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

UPDATE: Omigawd! Somebody has a 1:21:50 video on the "9/11 Cover UP". (Also referenced as "Loose Change", for whatever reason.) I tried to watch it, but the video quality is to low to read the documents it purports to reference. (H/T Les Jones)

Colt CCO has some comments and reference to further refutations. In case it's necessary.

In keeping with the 'shooting sports' theme of this blog, here is the redoubtable Beer Cannon.
(More Beer Cannon videos are available at the same You Tube webpage.)

And a guy letting someone shoot the bottle off his head --- Shades of William Tell ( William Tell Overture not included.)

Here is a video of a guy who took a photograph of himself every day -- for six years.

How about Street Magic? You like Criss Angel? Here's his Half A Woman illusion, where he has two women pull another woman into two parts on a park bench. Pretty scarey.

Here is a 21-minute video on Criss Angel illusions. An excellent showman. Once.

Sure wish I could play pool like this kid.

Videos are a blast, aren't they?

USPSA: Mike McCarter for President!

At a club match last weekend (September 8, 2006), Michael "Mac" McCarter announced his intention to run for the position of USPSA President in the next election.

Through the years which represent the lifespan of this blog, I have often lauded the merits of Mike "Mac" McCarter.

Mac is currently the Section Coordinator of the Columbia Cascade Section, is the past president of my home club (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club ... ARPC), and is currently the "IPSC Coordinator" of ARPC.

While holding these and other local offices, he has:

• Dragged ARPC from the muck-and-mire of the least-regarded club in the section to what is arguably the best club in the section;
• Improved ARPC's physical assets to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars of improvements for competitive pistol shooting, without taking one thin dime from the other disciplines at the club;
• Established standards of competition which have served, by example, to benefit the entire section;
• Brought two USPSA National Matches and two Area 1 matches to the Section within the past four years of his tenure (this in a section which had NEVER BEFORE hosted a level-III competition;
• Started an aggressive USPSA Junior program, finding sponsors and recruiting participants, so that today Juniors may participate in Level-III National Competitions at little or no cost to their families, thus helping to ensure the continuation of IPSC competition in USPSA to the next generation;
  
• Been the subject, or a proment person, in many USPSA Front Sight articles (I know, I wrote one or two of them);
• Made the Columbia Cascade Section one of the most active, vibrant and productive Sections of USPSA.

For the past year, I have suggested to, and encouraged Mac to run for the office of USPSA President. He has had little comment since then, and in fact seemed embarassed by the suggestion.

No more. He has announced his candidacy, and to my way of thinking this is an encouraging sign that USPSA is still a viable competitive entity.

USPSA has elected 'place-holders' for most of its existance. Ever since Colonel Jeff Cooper left office, our leadership has been adequate, competent, almost appropriate ... but not charismatic.

No more. We NEED a Leader.

Mike McCarter is definately a Leader.

For the past ten years, USPSA has struggled to retain the level of membership it had when new preidents came into office. Presidential leadership has evinced the priority of NOT losing more members than it attracted. Only in the past year ... of an eight-year presidency ... has membership increased to the point where USPSA was willing to boast of increased membership.

In the meantime, membership in the Columbia Cascade Section has increased such that it represents a significant portion of the USPSA membership. From year to year, some sections increawse membership while others lose membership. On the average, CCS has not only maintained its average number of members, but has increased it. More, these new members are juniors and their families, which suggests that the new members are more likely (especially in view of the available sponsorship) to be retained.

I submit that Mac McCarter is the most viable USPSA Presidential Candidate that we have seen for the effective life of this organization.

And when the ballots are sent out, in a year or two, I encourage all USPSA members to remember that Mac represents the hope of us all that USPSA will endure for the benefit of our sons and daughters in Competitive Shooting Sports for the future.

It's news, but it's not NEW news!

Today we present a special issue of Cogito Ergo Geek. We once called it "BlogMeat", but we over-used tha termt. For this single occasion, representing "The Night When The Geek Woke Up In The Middle Of The Night And Couldn't Get Back To Sleep, And Looked Up Old Blog Entries Out Of Sheer Boredom", we'll take a look at Gun Blog entries going back in time.

As an added bonus, this allows me to renew links to some of my favorite firearms-related websites, as reflected on my sidebar.

First, let's look at a Tucker Carlson interview with a Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence (formerly Handgun Contro, Inc.) lawyer discussing Indiana's revision to Concealed Carry laws. Indiana voted to issue Concealed Carry licences "for life" rather than require renewal every four years. The Brady Bunch objected, and Carlson called the Brady representative "unprepared" when she couldn't cite statistics on the number of Indiana CCW licensees who have been arrested for violent gun crimes. Read the show transcript here; search for "Brady" to find the applicable segment. (Show date July 6, 2006. H/T Packing.Org)


NEXT:

From Xavier Thoughts, a July 19, 2006 segment showing a male teenager who seems to break every rule of gunhandling safety while sitting at his kitchen table . The big Accidental Discharge sounds bogus to me ... and to others. Also, while he (the "Idiot With Guns #41") racks the slide of what looks like a very old Colt 1911, the hammer doesn't appear (to me) to have actually remained cocked. In short, while it illustrates the violation of basic safety rules, the entire filmstrip appears contrived. But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.
H/T The Ninth Stage. (The link is at the bottom of the page, as of this writing.)

NEXT:

As long as I'm mentioning The Brady Bunch, allow me to gloat one more time in referencing their premature announcement on August 24, 2006,that the California state senate passed the egregious AB 352.

As I wrote on September 07, 2006, this impossible dream collapsed with the surprisingly realistic appreciation that enforcement of this law would be hugely expensive, completely ineffective, and was ultimately nothing more than the imposition of economic burdens on legitimate firearms owners in a thinly disguised end-run around the Second Amendment to establish ipso facto gun control. So ... Stamp THIS!, Brady!

FINALLY:

Here's a difficult subject, based on a September 5, 2006 editorial in the New York Times.

(This link may not work for you, unless you are an on-line subscriber to the NYT. It didn't really work for me, even though I signed up for the free subscription. After the day when it appears, an article is archived by the NYT and you can't see the full text of the article without buying it. I'm not inclined to pay $4.95 to read a single article in the NYT, or even to read the whole thing 365 days a year. If you are willing to buy the article, please send it to me and I will include it where it can be read for free by others.)

The article is entitled:

Editorial Observer; Once a Progressive State, Minnesota Is Now a Fief of the N.R.A.

It concerns the "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry law that Minnesota passed last year. Basically, the author ("VERLYN KLINKENBORG") is against it.

Gun-Pro Progressive, a Maryland gun-blogger, fisked the article in NYT Editorial–How Out of Touch Can You Be?, and I was entirely impressed by the logical approach to these falacious anti-gun arguments. (Click here to read his justifacation for being a pro-gun progressive ... a fascinating read.)

If you don't care to read the whole article, here are a few of the comments. Maybe they will convince you that it's worth your time:

But to me, owning guns and knowing how to use them properly was part of a civic bargain. I would leave the police work to the police, and they would leave the squirrel hunting to me. The notion that 38 states would have “concealed carry” laws in 2006 would have seemed insane, a regression to a more primitive idea of who we are.

Being able to defend yourself is not taking police work away from the police. It is NOT the police department’s job to provide for your safety as you go about your daily business. That’s well established caselaw, something Verlyn seems to have missed. See Castle Rock, CO. vs Gonzales.

Seems he’s missed that actually 40+ states allow private citizens to carry. You’d think if allowing CCW permits led to bedlam and mayhem and a “regression to a more primitive” state of affairs, you’d have heard about it by now. It’s amazing to me people like Verlyn can look at a map of the United States, and see state after state where the passage of Shall Issue laws has been a complete non-event (no blood in the streets, no anarchy, no OK-Corral-On-Every-Corner scenarios), and not realize that they’re barking up the wrong tree. It’s as though they’re thinking “well it didn’t cause hell on earth in the first thirty-odd states that went Shall Issue…but it’s going to happen soon! Really!”

Actually, it's 48 states, as I mentioned last March.

The editorial writer mentions several other issues which are central to the gun-control frantic efforts to obfuscate the issue:

"The application for a concealed-weapon permit appears to have been created by people who believe the real threat in carrying a gun is the loss of privacy entailed in filling out the form. Yet it isn’t possible for a member of the public to find out who has received a permit and may, in fact, be packing heat."

This isn't just a "privacy Issue" as Pro-Gun Progressive argues. It's also a safety issue.
A few years ago I wrote (not on this forum) about a lady friend of mine who lives and works in Portland, Oregon. She lives in the suburbs, so she drives her car to a light-rail nexus and takes the train to work. While waiting for her morning train one cold winter morning, she was approached by a group of yobs who started their typical aggressive intimidating cant about how she should give up her purse because they needed the money in her purse more than she did. Cold and frightened, she put her hands in the pockets of her overcoat.

The yobs were immediately intimidated. The "Shall Issue" bill had recently been passed in Oregon, and the yobs knew that she could legally carry a firearms in self-defense. They accused her of having a firearm in her hand, and cursed her vigorously. But they retreated, and never threatened her again.

She had been 'tagged', in their mind, as a person who was a 'non-victim'.

The great value of "shall issue" laws is not that it allows people to carry concealed firearms, but that the yobs of the world don't know who is a non-victim. Perhaps this is an unintended consequence of these acknowledgements of an individual's right to self defense, but it is one that may act to the benefit of even those who falaciously believe that police are their first line of defense against criminal aggression.

But there’s a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

Heaven forfend we be a little concerned about individual rights (this is why an old lefty like me hates anti-gunner nonsense so much–rightfully so, we make a lot of hay about George Bush’s NSA program invading our privacy and ignoring our individual rights, we want invidual choice when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, religion, free speech, you name it…but not when it comes to protecting your own life). What rights are being shoved aside? You don’t have a right to insist that I can’t protect myself.

And he uses the old canard, that we’re not trained properly.

Training.

What is it good for?

It's good for a lot, if you're going to use a firearm ... let alone carry one.

The idea that police officers are poorly trained, underpaid bureaucrats who spend their on-duty hours eating donuts and harrassing hookers has been with us for far too long. I personally know a number of LEOs who work hard at gun-handling skills and are some of the most daunting IPSC competitors in the area. (I also know some whose gun-handling skills are nearly non-existant, and who frighten me whenever I share a range with them, and a few of them are members of what passes for S.W.A.T. teams locally.)

There are two points here:

One is that the police are not obligated to protect you from aggressive criminals. You're on your own, Pal, and if you don't want to be mugged, raped and murdered it behooves you to learn how to protect yourself in the best way that seems possible.

The other is that not ALL police officers, perhaps not even the majority, are incompetent when it comes to shooting. As long as a significent number of LEOs consider firearms profeciency to be, for whatever reason (self-defense, job competence or even casual firearms competition), a priority ... all those who know that competent shooters are on The Force may serve to dissuade the yobs from challenging them in the field. This is A Good Thing for civilization.

I think that local police agencies are making a big mistake by not publicizing the competitive accomplishments of their LEOs, and it seems a likely subject for a future post. If everyone knew that Officer Krupki was a Grand Master shooter, the yobs would be praying that the next time they mug a person ... the responding officer would not be Officer Krupski.

UPDATE: September 21, 2006
I've been given a copy of the original NYT article, and I've posted it for your consideration here.

Colonel Cooper

I don't know if there are any other blogs which are devoted almost entirely to IPSC/USPSA competition, so I feel an obligation to inform you of the most current news regarding Colonel Jeff Cooper.

He is currently suffering from a severe physical infirmity, a problem with his back, which has precluded almost all physical activity, including the addition of more Cooper Commentaries.

We hope that he will recover and continue guiding us in, among other subjects, The Way A Man Should Live.

We (not the 'Editorial We', but you and I) join Xavier Thoughts in wishing The Colonel a speedy recovery, but I must warn you that it doesn't look good. When a man of such seniority is confined to his bed, it requires a strong constitution for medical assistance to offer relief.

You can find the latest report on the Cooper's Commentaries page.

This makes me particularly grateful to Dillon Precision, which provided reprints Cooper's two-volume set of the Gargantuan Gunsight Gossip, of which I have spoken in previous articles and which I am still reading; slowly, and carefully.

No, I still don't agree with everything he says. But I still admire the way in which he says it.

Colonel Cooper is the Father of IPSC, in every sense of the term.

Whew!

Here's a big "Whew!" for terrorists, and those who fight them.

ABC News "The Blotter" has an article about testing which is being conducted to determine the effectiveness of anti-carbomb barriers and anti-penetration materials for buildings.

You really need to read the article to understand what you're seeing, and it has links to all of the short crash-dummy tests. But they have ALL of the tests on a single film, which you can see here. (2:29 minutes. Ignore the short commercial film at the beginning.)

Also;

From my friend Bob H., I received a film which demonstrates the awesome power of the .50 BMG in the hands of an American sniper.

Here's the text which Bob sent to explain it:

These are some examples of the fight in Afghanistan.. These video shots are not made through the shooter's telescopic sight... they are made looking through the spotter's scope. The spotter lies right next to the sniper and helps the sniper to find and home in on the target.

The sniper is using a 50 caliber rifle. A 50 cal. round is about 7-8 inches long and the casing is about an inch in diameter. The bullet itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long. Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban is laying on top of the peak in front of you... when you hear the! shot fired... watch what happens.

The sniper is also about a half mile away... or more. It is not known if the sniper team is Marine or Army.

You can download the film here (2.32 mb WMV-format movie).

A broadband connection is recommended to watch any of these videos.

A strong stomach is recommended to watch the sniper video.
You won't believe the "Hang Time".

Crazy Croc Match Results

You didn't win.

http://www.columbia-cascade.org/Special%20Events/ccs_championships.htm

Read "The Ten Ring"

I've been reading "The Ten Ring" for some time now, because it's a well-written Gun Blog and because it often presents articles which are of interest to me.

I usually go to it from Michael Bane's Shooting Gallery, because I spend a lot of time there both writing and reading the other folks Michael has linked to.

Tonite I was reading an especially fascinating Ten Ring article about 'Another Hysterical "Gun Owner"', and it occured to me that as often as I read this blog .... maybe you don't!


Sure, the blog frequently includes articles that don't interest me.

I'm pretty sure that Denise and Sam don't get much out of my IPSC-related articles, either. They don't shoot the sport, and my articles on The Croc Match (for example) probably don't float their boat.

But they spend a lot of time on RKBA subjects, and that does interest me.

You may not spend much time on the Bane Shooting Gallery website (though you'd be a damn fool not to), so I've not only written this article to draw your attention to the, I've also added them to my sidebar under "Places I Recommend".

I strongly encourage you to go check them out.

Heck, they may even add ME to THEIR sidebar!

Stamp THIS!

CA Legislative Info and Contact Tools


Microstamping ammunition in Kalifornia (AB 352) has been defeated!

(GIF courtesy of NRA Members' Council of California)


You may recall that California tried this kind of Closet Gun Control before ... last year, and it took a year to defeat it in the Senate. I blogged about it April 27, 2005, June 5, 2005, June 8, 2005, and June 12, 2005.


In the June 12, 2005 article I said:

Another bill, AB352 (not previously mentioned here), would require that new firearms sold in California after a certain date would automatically stamp each cartridge case with the serial number unique to this firearm. Parenthetically, we should note that this constitutes ipso facto registration of every new pistol sold in California, because the purported purpose of this measure is to aid in criminal investigations whenever a firearm is used in the commission of a crime.

In order for "... (automatic stamping of) ... each cartridge case with the serial number unique to this firearm..." to be effective, ALL applicable firearms must be registered.

So much for the 2nd amendment.

This may not, in retrospect, be completely clear.

If you (a Law Enforcement Officer) happen upon a scene where an ejected case is found, you may discover that the case is indeed stamped with "... the serial number unique to this firearm..."

This is of little value without being able to tie the serial number of the firearm to the owner. The only way to do this is to require that each firearm be registered.

This means the firearm must be registered, and the logical extention is that when registration is legally required, confiscation cannot be far behind. California has proved that logical extention when it first required registration of "assault weapons", then (California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer) used that same registration list to enforce confiscation ... without compensation, if you recall.

Fortunately, AB 352 has (as of August 31, 2006) FINALLY been voted down. It's difficult to imagine how an illegal gun-control law could fail in Kalifornia, but it has, and that's A Good Thing.

Jim Shepherd in "The Outdoor Wire", (my favorite online Shooting Community Information Resource; subscribe here), has the story:

The California legislature has failed to pass the "MicroStamp" legislature reported last week in The Shooting Wire. As introduced, AB 352 would have led to significant price increases for consumers on all firearms, with the Attorney General of California then having the right to require serialization of all ammunition.

Micro stamping would have made it difficult to sell firearms in California; serialization would have ended sales as all firearms and ammunition manufacturers agree that while micro stamping would have been difficult, serialization would have been downright impossible.

Despite the failure of the measure, it is another example of the measures anti-firearms legislators are willing to take in their campaign to remove firearms from legal owners in California. Micro stamping, the heart and supposed intent of the bill would have forced manufacturers to use a patented process available from a single manufacturer. Legal experts tell us that fact could have formed the basis for a stay of the bill. Neither did the fact that micro stamping was being mis-applied in this supposed application. Micro stamping has proven effective in identifying tiny computer components, but it was not designed to turn the firing pins of every firearm into a tiny stamping machine, pounding the model, serial number and manufacturer of the firearm into every shell casing.

The damming fact about the legislation's intent, however, wasn't in any of the hard facts, but the soft actions taken to "slip in" language permitting the Attorney General to require serialization of all ammunition sold in California "at a future date." That brought a collaborative campaign against AB 352 by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), National Rifle Association, California Association of Firearms Retailers and the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

"We could not be more pleased with the outcome of this vote," said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the NSSF, "this legislation would not only have forced an unproven and costly technology upon both firearms consumers and taxpayers, but it would have allowed for the banning of all ammunition in California."

Micro stamping and ammo serialization opposition was not limited to the industry. Major law enforcement and taxation opponents also opposed AB 352 as price increases of as much as $150 per gun were projected for consumers and all taxpayers would have paid for micro stamping on law enforcement firearms.

"We have always said that further research into microstamping, like the study currently being conducted at the University of California, Davis, would be necessary before the legislature considers mandating this very dubious technology," added Keane. "By defeating AB 352, the California Assembly passed a measure of common sense."

That study not withstanding, micro stamping had also been proven by independent research to be easily defeated by either using common household tools to remove the stamping surface from original firing pins on weapons or by simply using a replacement firing pin and removing the original.

While the defeat of AB 352 may be passage of a measure of common sense, the preponderance of evidence from California may indicate that common sense will only prevail until the next effort to ban firearms.

We'll keep you posted.

--- Jim Shepherd

You may remember that I talked last year about Kalifornia's SB 357, which proposed that all ammunition sold in that state be pre-stamped with a serial number which would allow the identification of each round by manufacturer and even the individual box ... which would presumably identify the original purchaser.

You may also remember that I said it would increase the price of ammunition ten-fold, without producing the proposed benefit of identifying criminals by the ammunition left behind.

If you don't remember, or weren't aware of the controversy at that time, I urge you to go to the links published above and relive those sterling days of yesteryear when Kalifornia's Korrupt Kongresspersons started their end-run to use phoney Crime Control laws to generate Economic hardship on legitimate gunowner.

Their end purpose was Gun Control, and the curtailment of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

These people don't have the Good of The People in mind, folks. They don't want to solve crime. They couldn't care less about criminals. They will always, eventually, catch the Gypsies Tramps and Thieves.

They want to disarm the people who elected them. They want to control you.

They're afraid of you, because you have the ultimate means to curtail governmental corruption.

Any politician who votes for gun control does NOT have your best interests at heart. He wants to enslave you, for his own benefit.

And the politicians who tell you different?

They're the worst of the lot.

Use YOUR vote to kick the blackguards out of office. You don't need to be politically savvy. All you need to do is review their public record on Gun Control Issues.

If they vote for Gun Control, they vote against you. All other issues are just background.

UPDATE: September 11, 2006

An August 25, 2006 article in CNSNEWS.COM ("Gun 'microstamping' bill passes California Senate") ... obviously written before the final vote ... has more information on the bill.

It's frightening to see how close this transparent effort to effect gun control in California came to becoming the law of the land.

Just one more reason for me to be thankful that I moved back to Oregon from California back in 1976,

H/T - Front Sight, Press

Black Beauty Is Dead

Colt!

The very name evokes imagery. A new-born stallion racing with the wind, Ferrari's rampant horse icon, and that of the Colt Firearms Company of Hartford, Connecticut!

Well, nobody has read "Black Beauty" for 20 years. Enzo Ferarri is dead, and so is Colt Firearms Company of Hartford, Connecticut.


Between the Single Action Army, and the Browning 1911, Colt managed for generations to sell every firearm they designed and produced. The phrase "Colt Legendary Quality" was well earned, as the fit and finish of Colt firearms were evidence of the craftsmanship of the near-unique production values of this famous company. Sons followed fathers into the factory, and took pride in their efforts to create the finest production firearms of their times.

The 1980's were the watershed for Colt. In 1984, when the U.S. Military replaced the 1911 with the egregious Beretta 92 as the standard-issue military sidearm, Colt (having largely ignored the civilian market, with the possible exception of small-niche revolvers) found itself a producer looking for a market.

Colt Firearms suffered a schizophrenic personality split, being divided between the "Colt Defense" military/leo/Private Security market and the lackadaisical "Civilian" market represented by Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC.

Somewhere between way-back-when and now, their union workers went on a wage-strike that lasted for four years. Colt hired unskilled workers to fill current orders, and the "Legendary Colt Quality" went straight down the tube. Eventually even their contracts for military firearms (such as the AR-16) went to foreign competitors.

The company tried to improve its relationship with the civilian market, but the lack of quality (and the misunderstanding of what their potential customers wanted) produced even more guns without a cause, and the few customers they had were even more disappointed with the quality.

The '90s were marked by another bankruptcy, somewhat mirroring that which the company had survived in the 19th century.

Colt sold to "Foreign Interests", which had no understanding at all of the American gun market. The new owners, eager to curry favor with the existing Clinton Administration, made public statements in favor of gun control. The American market for Colt firearms completely dried up in protest; the only mitigating factor was that the (foreign) owners of S&W made similar public statements. This did not actually relieve Colt's profitless misery, but perhaps it did help to spread the blame if only because S&W's 2000 official, formal accession to the Clinton White House coersion to require (S&W) dealers to accomodate extensive and intrusive Gun Control measures which impacted ALL of their trading, not only those which involved firearms obtained from the (S&W) manufacturer. For example S&W dealers might be proscribed from selling at gun shows.

This anti-gun movement was, of course, fueled by the gun control zealots who resorted to lies in their effort to demonize guns. But here we saw the very people who built the guns supporting those who would undermine their business and their customers' ability to buy their product.

Their customers reacted with acrimonious market boycots.

Where are we now?

Who knows?

One thing is for sure: Colt is looking for a sugar daddy.

According to Jim Shepherd of "The Shooting Wire" (unfortunately, an article available only to subscribers and not available as an independent Internet link), one possible buyer of Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC might have been STI:

Other stories, including the sale of Colt, have dragged on longer than the Florida elections. Today, there's still no definitive resolution to the saga. An arbitrarily high valuation of the civilian side of the business ended that outright sale option in the Colt soap opera.

STI, the company that was ready to buy the civilian operation, has moved on, announcing upcoming production of a single-action revolver called the Texican. It will be aimed at the upper echelon cowboy action competitors, following the same model that has made STI's "race guns" major players in practical shooting.

With a highly successful, manufacturing-oriented business model, STI may, indeed, make a dent in the cowboy market - especially if STI contributes bonus money to cowboy action the way it has in practical shooting. The Texican may find its way into the holsters of the new generation of single-action shooters, despite the fact SASS has continually shied away from the idea of "win money" and sponsorships. STI's move into cowboy action may lead to the recognition that professional shooters exist in cowboy action.

(Link to the "Texican" is mine; it does not provide any "Texican" content, only a reference to its perhaps-future into STI's "Legacy" line of products.)

How 'dead' is Colt?

It's so dead, it hasn't even the organization needed to sell body parts.

If Black Beauty (to invent a parallel) can't even be sold to a glue-factory, that would be unfortunate. That Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC can't be sold to a solid, reputable and prosperous company like STI, which would certainly produce a resurrection 'in a manner reminiscent to Lazarus', is a sad commentary on the Firearms Industry in America today.

Crocodile Hunter Zero - Stingray One

Crocodile Hunter Stever Erwin died (news release September 4, 2006) while filming in the ocean off the Great Barrier Reef.

He apparently approached a Stingray too close, frightening it. The Stingray flipped its tail up, under his ribcage and into his heart.

He was DOA at the mainland.

Erwin is best known for a 2004 incident in which he held his infant son in his arms while feeding ('taunting'?) a crocodile.

Erwin was 44, and is survived by his wife and children, including (apparently) his four-year-old son.

If there is any justice here, it is in that he was survived by the son who was part of his actions which attracted international approbation.

Michael Jackson Take Note.

USPSA Website Member Area Password

For those of you who didn't notice, the "Members' Area" website has been assigned a new Username and password.

According to Rob Boudrie in the Brian Enos Forum:

The old and new password will work concurrently for at least a month or three.

The reason we change the username and password, rather than just the password, is to allow an overlap. We can have multiple username/password pairs, but only one password per username.

I hadn't noticed this. If you haven't either, I encourage you to drag out your September/October 2006 "Front Sight" magazine (Volume 23, Number 5) and look at the very bottom two lines in the center column of Page 1 to get the new "Username" and "Password".

No, I'm not going to give it to you here. This website is open to everyone, not just USPSA members. Changing a secured (or even 'private') website password from time to time is "A Good Thing". I wouldn't presume to compromise USPSA's security measures.

USPSA Presidential Election

According to my Geekish Spidey-Sense (and the USPSA By-Laws), we in the United States Practical Shooting Association are soon to begin the process of electing a new President.


I remember the Presidential Debate which took place at the 1999 Limited Nationals in Las Vegas, Nevada. Michael Voigt was the winning candidate, and he is completing his second term in office.

According to the USPSA By-Laws, the president is elected for a four-year term of office ... which suggests that campaining should begin next year (2007) and the new President should take office in the following year (2007).

ARTICLE 6 - ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS: 6.1 The President:

The President shall:

i.) be elected by vote of the individual membership, one vote per member,

ii.) be elected for a term of four years,

iii.) take office on January first following the year of his election,

iv.) serve until his successor is elected and takes office,

v.) be a resident of the United States Region, and

vi.) be Life Member to hold office.

Therefore, by my figuing, we should be looking at a new campaign season in 2007, with the elected president to take office in 2008.

It's not too soon for us to begin thinking about what we want in a new USPSA president. I haven't been thinking about this for too long, so the following list may be a little thin, but it seems to me that the criteria for a new president should include the following (Note that when I speak of "He/Him/His", I do so in the general sense of gender-nonspecificity; I'm certainly not suggesting that a female candidate would be less qualified, and if one should be proposed the future discussions would use the pronouns "She/Her/Hers"):

• The goal of a president should be the advancement and improvement of 'Practical Pistol' (and by extention 'Practical Firearm') competition within the United States of America Region of IPSC.
• Personal/Professional advancement or aggrandizement should not be a reason for his candidacy.
• Candidates should be able to identify and define specific goals which would lead to the advancement of USPSA competition and the organization.
• Milestones and timelines (eg: establish active programs to recruit juniors should result in the increase of membership by x number of new junior competitors by 20**) should be identified and should be a reasonable goal.
• Specific steps to achieve these goals should be defined.
• One of the primary planks in the candidate platform should be a determination to establish and fund new marketting efforts.
• Candidates should be able to define "growth" activities without reference to "creating new competitive Divisions" to "attract new shooters whose (gun, magazines, caliber, etc.) have not yet been separately been acknowledged". We already have so many divisions it is almost impossible to field sufficient competitors in the 'niche' divisions to justify distributing awards. The goal should be to encourage more mainstream shooters, not to diversify to the point of absurdity ... which we may already have done.
• The relationship between IPSC and USPSA has (tentatively) been re-defined to allow USPSA to maintain IPSC Regional certification without ignoring traditional values and legal restrictions in USPSA. The next president should be able to start with this concept and establish a formal relationship without conceding valued USPSA priorities.

Some of the planks I've mentioned may not seem important to you as an USPSA member. Others may not be clear, because I haven't done a good job of defining them.

There may be other planks which you think are important indicators of a viable candidate for USPSA president, but I haven't mentioned.

If any of these situations define your priorities, I encourage you to comment here. The goal is to achieve a consensus of what a viable candidate for USPSA President should look like BEFORE we begin to evaluate the resumes of the candidates.

Also, this may be a good start for candidates to consider what the 'hot button' issues of this election may be, and begin to consider how their own priorities fit with the General Membership.

I know this isn't a "forum" context, as it doesn't really allow for full comentary. However, you may choose to take this concept to another website (such as the USPSA Forum or the Brian Enos Forum) and discuss it there.

You will note that I haven't even mentioned competition rules. It is my expectation that a presidential candidate who meets the criteria already mentioned will also be able and willing to negotiate a reasonable next-version of the USPSA Rule Book with IPSC, to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.

Don't agree?

Tell me why!

PS: I don't want this to sound like a criticism of the tenure of Michael Voigt. He has served honorably and productively for two terms, and among his many accomplishments are both the glastnost ("openness) and perestroika ("restructuring") between IPSC and USPSA.

NB:
I apologise for appearing to suggest a similarity of relations between IPSC and USPSA with those between the "World Community" and USSR. The situations are not similar, but the terminology is remarkably appropriate even though the sociological / political division was much more pronounced for the USSR.

Dean Speir

I received an email from Dean Speirs, who wrote the articles (in The Gun Zone) which inspired the KaBOOM! article.

His comments were pungent (and I mean this in the very nicest sense), to the point, and informative.

In subsequent exchanges, he gave me his permission to reprint his email, which I do here in grateful appreciation.

Well, I must say... and well, again!

A friend found your Jerry-the-Geek KaBoom piece and passed along the link. My blushes!

Coupla comments on that particular blog entry:

1. Gawd!, I wish I'd written "the tendencies of nervous, high-strung or over-stressed pistols to blow up during shooting," so I will add it to the kB! FAQ page somewhere with a (wholly self-serving) cite and link to your blog.
2. Minor erratum:
   

   We saw that in the John Wayne western movie Rio Lobo, essentially a 1970 remake of the 1966 Wayne Western El Dorado

   Delve a tad deeper into IMDb, Brasshopper, and you will learn that both Westerns were very directly remakes of 1959's Rio Bravo, all three being written by Leigh Brackett, directed by Howard Hawks, and starring Wayne.
   
   And if you ever wanna see a more modern "plugged barrel KaBOOM!," rent a copy of The Girl Hunters, in which Mickey Spillane plays his own detective creation!
3. Under the heading of "I was there and I'm surprised that you weren't:"
   

   The KaBOOM! factor was never important until some daring young man (probably Brian Enos) realized that the all-but-forgotten .38 Super cartridge could be used in a pistol which had higher magazine capacity

   I'm shocked... shocked, I tell you... that you don't know that the real culprit here was one Michael McCormick. He was the one who really pioneered the .38 Super in IPSC and almost single-handedly brought beards into vogue on the shooting fields of USPSA. "Chip" was the only one I saw at World Shoot VI in '83 shooting Super. I've since been informed that their may have been one other, but aside from a couple of Europeans shooting "Minor Nine," everyone else I saw was shooting .45 ACP. Chip finished 15th as I recollect, and seven months later, when I was at Steel Challenge, Super had been discovered in a huge way! (Yeah, I know... different power factors factor into this issue.)
4. Continuing in that section:
   

   ...but with a longer cartridge case it had the capacity to legally "make major" ... if loaded with MORE POWDER and which avoided the IPSC rule relegating 9x19 cartridges as "minor power".)

   Now this is very definitely your realm, not mine, but wasn't the "If the headstamp sez 'Luger' or 'Parabellum,' then it's minor!" rule instituted circa '89 or '90, long after hoisted the Super flag?
5. Persevering:
   

   At about the same time, they discovered compensators.

   Again I demur... I'm going up on the name of the South African shooter who actually got the ball rolling at the moment, but the shooter who (again I'll use the word) "pioneered" compensated guns here was Mike Plaxco, and that was circa 1981. WS VI two years later was still ruled by five-inch guns, however.
6. You're getting pretty far afield when you get to the Glock stuff, but then perhaps I'm being "too critical here." But you do have a factual error or three there, mostly in the model designations. But then that'll just allow the Glock Flock to dismiss you as a crank.
   
   Just remember this: Gaston's sole motivation to entering the .40 S&W market was a big "neener neener neener" to Smith & Wesson.
7. Glock has yet to adequately address the "not fully supported caseheads" problem.

I'll sign off here before you go on the nod.

Thanks for the kind words and the links.

If you're ever at a SHOT Show, I'll stand the first round... the second and third as well if Bane continues buying with his usual reckless abandon!

• Dean Speir <DeanSpeir@thegunzone.com>

«-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-»
Formerly Famous Gunwriter / The Gun Zone Maintainer

http://www.thegunzone.com

Annual Review

August, in Geekistan, is the month where we are encouraged to provide input to our Annual Review.

Since my boss has no clue what I do from day to day in the Professional Computer Geek Community, there are a series of categories in which I must Score Highly to achieve a salary increase. Among these are "User Support" and "Initiative". (More on this in a minute.)

I'm already overpaid for doing the thing that I like to do, which makes me a happy feller, so my contribution to this process is probably at the Underachiever level. I don't care. I have enough money to pay my bills and load ammunition for the next club match, and pay match fees. I plan to work until I die, so in happy grasshopper fashion I don't worry all that much about planning for my retirement. Social Security and my Pension, it says in my annual reports, will provide me almost as much money as I spend on rent today. So I'll go live under a bridge, just me and SWMBO and our XL650, and we'll live as long as we live.

Some people, though, seem to have problems.

For example, here's a story of an English Postman, who either got tired of carrying around a bunch of Dead Trees for not discernible reason, or thought his customers (the junk-mail receiving people on his postal route) may not enjoy receiving junk mail any more than he enjoyed delivering it.

At his own expense, and on his own initiative, he had some flyers printed up describing the procedure they could follow if they did not want unsolicited solicitations delivered to their mailslots.

Sounds like Customer Service, right?

But according to his employer (the Royal Mail) has suspended him pending an investigation.

A Royal Mail spokesman said that the Door-to-Door scheme was vital for the company's ability to compete on an equal footing with other delivery organisations. The company delivers a quarter of Britain's unaddressed mail. The spokesman said that the deliveries provided a much-needed service to small businesses and consumers.

Apparently, the British equivalent of UPS and Fed-Ex (which, come to think of it, are probably UPS and FedEx) are such strong competitors for delivery service, the Royal Mail is reduced to Doing The Job That Englishmen Won't Do ... delivering junk. And anyone who undermines that essential function may freely be considered a traitor to The Service.

I hear you saying: "It's The Economy, Stupid!"

Yeah, right. As a "customer" of the U.S. Postal Service, I could do with a whole lot less Dead Trees (Safeway flyers and offers to increase my manhood. Oh wait, that's Email Spam, right?) which go into the ashcan before I unlock my front door.

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

Here's another one, a lot closer to home:

The Firefighting Industry in Idaho must be experiencing a market-slump, because ...

SALMON, Idaho -- A federal firefighter accused of persuading a friend to set a brush fire on the city's outskirts has been charged with conspiracy to commit arson.

Sounds reasonable to me.

If your business is Fighting Fires, and there are no Fires to Fight ... Hey! Demonstrate your initiative by inviting a friend to start a few fires in a worthless clump of brush. You and your cow-workers can Make Good Money and Start Your Own Business by fighting manufactured fires.

Seems reasonable to me. Good training, and that clump of sagebrush was probably just a forest fire waiting to happen anyway. Why not? Heck, they pay you the same whether you're fighting fires or just sitting around the Station House.

But do they give you crediti for Initiative.

NOOooooo!

They want to throw your fanny into the hoosegow. Does that seem fair to your?

Me either.

Of course, I don't live in Salmon, Idaho. If I did, I might have a different attitude. But I live in Oregon, so what do I care if Idaho changes it's State Motto from '"Esto perpetua" (which apparently means "May It Live Forever" ... don't ask me! Like you, I thought it was an American State) to "French Fries, Anyone"?

Excuse me: "Freedom Fries".

So, if you're a firefighter in Idaho, you don't get bonus points on your Annual Review for "Initiative". Seems anti-American to me, but maybe it has to do with the State Motto being a Spanish Saying. I don't know. I don't get paid for this stuff, I just cut&paste the quotes.

It seems to me as if the only way to get ahead is to completely ignore The Rules, which don't make sense to an ordinary man, and just ... do your own thing. Make up your own rules. Don't worry about your Annual Review, they're gonna slaughter you anyway. Might as well have it done under YOUR terms, right?

Here's a story about the Iraqi Army, which seems to be more of a "regional militia" than a "National Army".

These guys are perfectly content to live and work in their home state/province/county/parish (I don't know what they call their area, do you?) but feel that moving to another state/province/county/parish as their AOR (Area Of Responsibility) is just asking too much.

You can't blame them. They know what they signed up for. Maybe nobody else knows, but THEY do! They were asked to "defend the Home Front", and that's just what they're gonna do. That doesn't include fighting people they don't know to defend people they don't know. They're just going to ... literally ... defend their home. They may not have been drafted by their "Friends and Neighbors" (read: people they grew up with, and know personally) but they have a pretty good idea that if they were born in southern Maysan province and are later requested and required to go defend Baghdad .... you gotta ask yourself: "Do I Feel Lucky!"


I'm going to assign this one to the category: "Know and Support your Customer Base", and I'll give them an 8 out of 10 possible points for knowing what their job is and who their customers are.

Okay, that's not on the form.

But it oughta be,.

Croc Match Update

Administrivia, Match Director Announcements & match start time,
Registration Confirmation, (recent addition: links to match scores and photos)

I'll keep this on top of the Blog for a while, for your convenience.

Administrivia:

Entry Form (a PDF file)
Photos and Videos from 2005 Croc Match
Previous Geek Blog about the match.

There's a problem with the TeamCroc website, so the promised registratation confirmation didn't happen. You'll find it here effective (currently) August 24, 8:47pm PST.

Notes from the Match Director, Paul Meier:

Entry fee has been held to $65 for the match, sorry we couldn't get the word out faster.

Sat. morning check in from 8 am on, presentation address at 9 and shooting to follow. Sat. 5 stages with the last 3 left for Sun.

Wait until you see the shirts, they are outstanding. I have a limited number and everyone will want one. To start they are red polos and have a well you'll have to see them. This is the 10 th Anniversary so they are special! Since you know me I don't have to say any more.

Right now I have 96 shooters if everyone shows up. Next week is HELL week for a few of us to put every thing together.

(I don't have photos of the shirts, or I would include them here. Paul, are you listening?)

Registration Confirmation: 2006 Crazy Croc Shooters
(If your name is here, your match registration is confirmed. These are listed in the order in which the entries were received.)

UPDATE:
Since the match has long been completed, I have removed the competitor list from this article. Many people don't like to have their names posted on the Internet, and out of respect for their privacy I have returned to my usual policy of not identifying by full name those who are not 'public images' or who have not already acquired a certain amount of celebrity in other internet sources.

However, you can see the match results here, and visit my Video Shooting Gallery here to see some photos and videos of the match.

-- end of competitor list as of August 24, 2006 --

Brits lose another 'subject'

The Hobo Brasser sent me another one of those "Second Amendment Lists" today. I read it, nodded, thought briefly about blogging it and then thought again. Everybody who reads this blog has probably already read a copy by the time I get it, so why bother?

Then I read the article in the Times Online which suddenly put a whole new face on it.

First, here's the List:

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Gun Lock: The original point and 'click' interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6 If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free Men Do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.

15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "Gun Control Laws" we have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. ".. A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Sounds familiar, right? Pretty much a no-brainer for you and me. Cleverly worded, but the message is one we've been hearing and voicing for years.

The link at the top (right-click on the article title) points to the article describing how an East Londoner was rewarded for his refusal to let the Goblins in his neighborhood intimidate him.

Last January he was assaulted by "a gang of youths" (we call them 'Goblins'; in London they call them "Yobs" and feel they are fueled by alcohol and lack of curfews!), who slashed his face and his neck with knives.

He called the police, gave them names and descriptions, and carefully bagged his blood-soaked clothes to the cops would have physical evidence.

The police did ... nothing.

His fiance' called the police EVERY DAY for five weeks after the assault, with the result that the police ignored them, failing even to come pick up the clothes.

This week, the Goblins came calling again. This time they had a gun. They shot him dead on his doorstep, in front of his fiance' and their three-year-old son.

The media finally got into the act, and raised enough of a ruckus that ... the police showed up. They picked up the bag of bloody clothes, which had been sitting in the victim's cupboard for SEVEN MONTHS. Then they went away again.

As of four days ago, the word was that the police were investigating.

The police are investigating their own handling of the original assault.

The fiance's father said:

"I think Peter would still be alive now if the police had acted earlier. We were told the police were overstretched. I said to them ‘Where in the pecking order is attempted murder?’ As far as I am concerned attempted murder is quite a serious thing."

I agree. I bet you agree, too.

Let me see; the Brits made private ownership of guns illegal, to 'combat crime'. Crime still occurred, so they outlawed knives, too.

In response, the Goblins attack this poor man with Knives. When it became clear that the victim wasn't going to yield to their intimidation, and understanding that the police weren't going to arrest them for using one illegal weapon, they used another illegal weapon to murder him.

Chances are they'll skate on the murder charge, too.

You're thinking I'm being too harsh on the police. You may change your mind when you read this paragraph in the article:

It was revealed today that a 14-year-old arrested over Mr Woodhams’ murder this week had also been held in connection with the earlier stabbing.

Still think I'm being too harsh? These police are 7,000 miles away from me, and at that distance I'm not capable of physically pointing a shaking finger in their faces and screaming "J'Accuse!" with spittle flying all over their neat bobby uniforms. Still those yo-yo's in blue are as responsible for that poor man's death as the "14-year old" child ... who the police had ALREADY pegged for another knife assault.

Why wasn't the victim allowed to arm himself, since he was an obvious target? You tell me.

I know what the stinking British Government says about their Unilateral Personal Disarmament.

But I keep thinking about the sad case of British farmer Tony Martin who killed a burglar and spent several years in prison over it. (During his trial, Martin asked what else should he have done when he was invaded in the dark of night by two criminals ... for the second time. The State said he should have "shouted for help". Martin at the time lived on an isolated 350 acre property, nobody could possibly have heard him. The police couldn't possibly have arrived in time to protect him if he had called them, and if they 'chose' to respond. The dead burglar's accomplice was arrested and spent 18 months in jail while Martin was sentenced to life in prison. The government gave the accomplice, who had 34 other offences on his record, 5,000 pounds to finance his civil lawsuit against Martin. Martin was finally released a couple of years ago, but he couldn't go home. He lives in hiding, with the full expectation that his life will be taken by other criminals as soon as they learn where he is. The police have no other way to protect him except to keep him in an 'unofficial prison' for the rest of his life ... which means until the police allow their own security to be breached. How hard can that be?)

The Brits have a shameful history of covering up their own ineptitude when investigating the murder of their subjects (not 'citizens' .... 'subjects' ... see Rule 1, above.) Two years ago, a white 15-year-old Glascow subject, Kriss Donald, was murdered by an Asian Gang. The police chose not to investigate it because it wouldn't be politically correct.

I cite these few cases ... there are literally thousands of them available ... to demonstrate the Hell On Earth that life has become for an honest man in a nation (a former EMPIRE!) gone mad with misguided social engineering.

Going back to the list, the rules hi-lited in red are only those which most directly apply to the East London victim's situation. In truth, all of them apply.

When we ignore these truths, as simple and trite as they seem, we leave ourselves as vulnerable as those poor British Subjects who are forced by their Socialist, Totalitarian government, under threat of lifetime incarceration, to trust their personal safety to the care of an uncaring, incompetent, intrenched bureaucracy.

There's one more thing I have to say, and then I'll go outside and kick the neighbor's cat:

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip: V1 #2 1984

Do you remember that I mentioned earlier the problem with reading Jeff Cooper's GGG books?

Yeah, that's right.

There's so much "good stuff" in it you can't hope but bookmark it.

The problem is, you end up with bookmarks on every page. Any attempt to be 'more selective' is bound for disappointment. It's nearly impossible NOT to find memorable comments or essays on every page.

I know this is true. I tried.

Therefore, I'm going to present a few of the 'memorable' quotes here, and on future articles. I'll probably drop a quote or two here and there in blog articles which aren't obviously intended for the purpose too.

I don't do this to enlighten you, although that may happen.
I do this so I can get the toilet paper and kleenex bookmarks out of my book, so it closes the way it should.

Are you ready?

Okay here we GO-o-o-o-o-o-o!

Question: "What is the first principle of knife throwing in combat?"
Answer: "Don't."

Basic self-defense: when you have only one weapon, and it is designed for close-combat, don't throw it away by attempting to turn it into a missile-weapon. You probably aren't trained for or effective in that, and the weapon is certainly not designed for that.

But of course, Cooper said the same thing, but more efficiently and more poetically (if such a word can be implied.)

This is why we're quoting Cooper. The comments are just to separate the quotes.

To shrink from proffered violence is not only dishonorable but futile. Whenever a man, clan or nation makes a policy of submission to deadly threat, social order is consciously subordinated to evil. Thus, the only moral and effective response to a threat is the stop-thrust.

Now the Free World faces the terrible problem of the Iranian bomb-riders. Anywhere -- outside the Soviet Union or China -- an Iranian will blow you up, together with himself, if you do not do what his masters command. And anytime you yield to that command another will be forthcoming -- at whim. We cannot live with that. And we cannot just hope that it will go away.

What do you propose?

It's amazing that the things Cooper said TWELVE YEARS AGO are so pertinent to the world today. But then, that's why we're quoting him today.

When you think about it (if you think about it), this is entirely applicable to the following quote.

It's all about submission, and when we get to the 21st century we'll learn a LOT about that!

"At the heart of socialism lies the fallacy that human problems can be solved by social reorganization."
Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn, of course, was familiar with the very heart of Soviet "Socialism". He wasn't really familiar with the modern Socialism, which is gutting Europe today. He thought that Russia was the very model of the modern Major Socialist Country. But of course, that was Communism and as such was much gentler than 21st Century Socialism.

Except for Stalin's starvation of millions of peasants, of course. The modern Europeans have a long way to go ... but they're working on that.

The Islamofascists are determined to contribute in any way they can.

We'll have to wait for Cooper's Volume II to address that.

x