Did Taurus buy Colt?

Last September, alerted by an email from The Shooting Wire, I wrote an article about Colt's attempt to attract a buyer for their Civilian Firearms Division.

At the time I was a sometime-guest-blogger at a somewhat larger and more popular gun blogger website, so instead of posting it on my own blog I posted it there. I thought it was a sufficiently important occasion that it deserved the much wider distribution.

To my surprise, the owner of the blog wrote me to explain that it wasn't really possible to post THAT article there. The owner had ties to the firearms industry, and was concerned that it would lead to frayed relationships. I replied that I understood, and suggested he had three options:

1. Let it run and see what happens
2. edit and republish it in an acceptable form
3. delete it, and I would publish it on my own blog.

His reply was:
"No problemo...I just need to go through it and de-libel it. Ironically, every word you say is true..."

So I left it up to him. To my not-very-great surprise (it was a rather long post), the article disappeared from that blog, so I re-published on my own blog as:

Cogito Ergo Geek: Black Beauty Is Dead

There it sat for six months, having received very little attention at the time.

This week I read the rumor that Colt had been bought by Taurus. As of this writing, I haven't made any effort to track it down ... even the March 30, 2007 edition of The Shooting Wire (which I consider an Industry Authority) failed to comment. So if you're looking here for difinitive confirmation or refutation of the rumor, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. Because the news hit the blogosphere late on Friday, even the NSSF website has no news yet, nor does the NRA website (although they have a March 31, 2007 editorial about Animal Rights by Wayne LaPierre). There's not even any information avaialble from the Colt Manufacturing Company, LLL website, and I suspect that this is the division (not the entire company) which would have been sold.

So the story is, as yet, only an Internet rummor.

Still ....
On the blog where I first read about the rumor, I left a short comment with a tinyurl link to my original article.

Someone on the AR15 forum picked that up, and posted the link (you can see the AR15 discussion in either of its manifestations, either here or the satellite version here.)

In the 24 hours, I have received over 1000 links to that article from readers of that forum.

(Welcome, AR15 Forum Members!)

The comments on that forum are, perhaps, representative of the reaction of most firearms owners to the rumor. There's incredulosity that an intrinsically American firarms manufacturing company can be best represented by a foreign owner ... as if that was a new situation.

Other than that, nobody seems to question the idea. You can hear the faint sound of "D'oh!" in the wind, implying that it's not surprising that the company is in trouble, it has been offered for sale, and that no American company is willing to buy Colt for the price offered.

Most of us, I think, have many more questions and observations than answers about the sale of Colt (or at least its civilian division).

Why is it for sale? Why can't a company which is arguably the premiere firarms manufacture in the United States make a profit on the sale of civilian firearms?

Is it because the increasing pressure on the firearms industry from gun-grabbers of all stripes (including our congressional representatives) has resulted in the 'demonization' of firearms?

Is it because the failure to introduce our children to hunting, competition and other free-time enjoyment of firearms usage has resulted in a much lowered market for firearms in this generation?

One thing I think we'll all agree on, when we think about it.
We've all seen the trend toward conglomerization of industry in this country. One company will buy another company and form a conglomerate, or larger corporate entity. This continues as corporate buy-outs swallow up the smaller companies, even eating the companies which focus on 'niche' markets.

But this has not happened in the firearms industry. Nobody wants to buy the problems that increasing governmental regulations, civil suits and criminal legislation, and bad Public Relations brings with the acquisition of a firearms manufacturing company.

This may be a symptom of a basic sickness in the American culture.

There is no such thing as a 'healthy' firearms industry today. The general opinion seems to be that the only reason for having a gun is to kill people. With the growth of the egregious PETA, it is no unacceptable to kill animals for meat or for sport.

As a Liberal Legislature and a Liberal Judicial system lead us closer and closer to the Socialist "European Model", the United Nations gains power in their drive toward Globalism ... a recent aspect of which is the attempt to enforce non-American values on individual liberties on all the citizens of the world. This is especially evidenced in the attempted infringement on civilian ownership of firearms.

Yet we sit quietly, expecting that these attacks on our civil rights will somehow fade away because they are obviously such an abomination that they can't possibly prevail in an American Free Society.

Think again.

Your elected representatives are happy to pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment, but they're just biding their time until you relax your vigilance. Then they take another bite ... or only a nibble ... out of your constitution. They don't even have to write a constitutional amendment. All they have to do is re-interpret it, and to attack the market economy that supports the people who make the firearms, and the ammunition, and the rest of the support industry.

They don't worry about someone buying Colt and continuing an American enterprise.

Sell Colt?

I'm doubtful.

Hell, they can't even give it away.

"French" Military Missile

I can't vouch for the authenticity of either the attached (4mb) video, or the accompanying text. I found it ... interesting. You may, too.

H/T to D.C., who use to shoot with us before he moved out of state (hope he comes back some day) via Paul the Soccer Coach:

READ THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU VIEW THE VIDEO!!
A freind [sic] of mine sent this to me... Very interesting

This is a clip of a French-Canadian infantry soldier firing an Eryx anti-tank missile.
The Eryx came in to their inventory about ten years ago. The Eryx is made in France.

A lot of people poke fun at the French military but this may give you a better appreciation of their capabilities.This is PROOF POSITIVE!!!

Either cut&paste the two halves of this URL into your browser window ...

http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/videos/
Missile_Eryx_qui_tombe_de_tres_pres.wmv

... or click here to go directly to the movie download.



(1:05 minutes, starts slow; apologies to the originator of this video -- I have no way to provide attribution.)

Toyota Prius is less ... everything! ... than a Hummer

The Recorder

Last weekend I was telling SWMBO that the Prius Hybrid car is less econonimcal, and less environmentally friendly, than the Hummer. I based this on a short article I heard on the Lars Larson show.

It has taken me four days to find the reference artice, but I finally did it. Here is it.

Money Quote(s):

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

Follow-up: The Brits Lose Another Subject

Last August I wrote an article titled "The Brits Lose Another Subject", detailing the circumstances under which a young Londoner was assaulted (slashed repeadedly in the head and neck with a knife) only to have the Bobbies do absolutely nothing to apprehend the assailant ... even though they knew who it was and where he lived.


Six months later, the same 22-year old Peter Woodhams was again accosted on the street in front of his home and shot dead. This in a country where guns, especially handguns (which was the weapon of choice here), are forbidden to law-abiding Brits.

The punks still have guns. Only the law-abiding are forbidden the means to defend themselves.

After Woodhams' death, the police finally got off their dead butts and stopped by the punks house. Eventually they arrested him and put him on trial for murder.


This week, the punk was convicted of murder despite his strong defense that "he only meant to scare his victim."

How had he intended to scare his victim?

At the Old Bailey, Tucker [the murderer] said he believed the gun he fired would only "go bang".

He said he was on his mobile phone when he saw an angry Mr Woodhams coming towards him swearing.

"I put my phone in my pocket and pulled out the gun and started shooting," he told the court.

He said he fired the weapon "to scare him, make him go in the other direction", but then noticed the blood on his chest.

Very observant of him, 'noticing' the unexpected blood on the chest of his (unarmed) victim. One wonders what he had THOUGHT the logical outcome would have been. I can picture him now, looking down at the gun in his hand and scratching his head with the other hand, muttering to himself "Sonovabitch, how the heck did THAT happen?"

Here's the punch line, and this one will just kill you:

Nine police officers are now facing a misconduct inquiry after claims they did not carry out a detailed enough investigation into the incident.

Talk about bloody british understatement.

----------------------------------------------
UPDATE: March 29, 2007

The Bobbies must be truly desperate for 'good press'. This from the London Daily Mail:

A peeping Tom has been banned from going out at night without a fluorescent jacket on.

Stephen Cooper, 24, has been ordered to wear the high-visibility clothing so he can be spotted by potential victims.

The pervert, who has pleaded guilty to voyeurism, received the order after being caught creeping into a woman's garden and staring through a crack in her curtains.

Great. They can't do anything about assault, very little about murder; but they're great on controlling Peeping Toms.

The Brits must be really unimpressed with the priorities of their police, right?

Welllllll .... maybe. Maybe not. Here's a comment attached to the article:

It's not often I'm left speechless but truly after reading this article it did happen.

I'm so pleased he will be highly visible - that should put everyone's mind at rest. Thank goodness for British justice.

"British Justice." Right.

It's unclear whether this comment should be taken at face value, or the British gift for sarcasm still lives.

We hope it's the latter. Otherwise, there is no hope at all.

BUT WAIT! There's Still Hope!

According to The Telegraph (UK),
Children Face Criminal Checks From The Cradel!

Checks will be made on all children to identify potential criminals under an extension of the "surveillance state" announced by Tony Blair.

A Downing Street review of law and order also foreshadowed greater use of sophisticated CCTV, an expanded DNA database and "instant justice" powers for police.

The review is intended to chart a course for the next 10 years by focusing more "on the offender, not the offence".

Most crime is committed by a small number of offenders who could be identified almost from birth, ministers believe.

---

The Government believes children can be prevented from becoming offenders if early intervention is targeted at those who displayed certain traits. These include having a short attention span or living in a deprived environment.

Here's a list of "features" of the proposed action:

• Universal checks on children to see who is at risk of becoming an offender.

• More support for problem families.

• Expand DNA database to include people who "come into contact" with police.

• More summary powers for the police to hand out instant justice.

• Better use of more sophisticated CCTV.

• Prolific offender orders for repeat offenders.

• Seizing non-cash assets from suspected criminals.

• Special units and courts for mentally ill offenders.

• Tougher community sentences.

• More drug rehab in jails.

• Review of police service to reduce red tape and put more bobbies on the beat.

Great. The bobbies they already have 'on the beat' are demonstrably incompetent, lacking in initiative and notoriously lazy. What's the solution? Certainly not to thin the ranks of dickwads. Instead, they're going to hire more dickwads.

And they're going to target your children as "bad boys" before they graduate from nappies. Whatever happened to the concept of "Crime AND Punishment"? Now they're going to punish 'potential' criminals, but now word on getting proven criminals off the streets.

Sorry, Great Britain.

Soon there will be only incarcerated maybe-wanna-be's, and Yobs.

We in the civilized world are gonna miss you.

Texas Star - The Most Evil Star In The Heavens

I got this from the Brian Enos Forums.

I hope this array never shows up at a match where I have to shoot it. It's evil.

Sorry, it's not available on YouTube and it's only viewable using IE; Netscape doesn't display the image (and I am guessing that FireFox wouldn't display it, either.)

H/T to Steve Z.

Big Clunky ... what?

For years, literally, I have tried to talk Paul the Soccer Coach into replying to The Unofficial IPSC List instead of to my personal email when he had comments about something I had posted there.

Last night I wrote about Rule 2.2.1, an incident which happened on Paul's Watch at a Dunde match. I was obviously pushing the envelope in an attempt to make a point, and Paul was perfectly comfortable letting me dig my own grave.

Here is his comment in reference to the "$100 Arbitration Fee" (posted to The List), which not only explains his response but illustrates just WHY I wanted his comments to be publically posted:

As the MD for this match under discussion I had it all under control and figured out. Someone else mentioned the $100. I just followed another shooters direction, 'what's all the whining about' and firmly held my ground and asked the shooter to show me the rule. My plan was to keep Jerry on the fidgety edge for a bit, no arbitration fee it was just if he was wrong I was going to toss him from the match and make it so he could come back until he was wearing smaller boots! You see the size of the boots were the problem! Any way I think we messed around long enough to get into Jerry's head enough to mess up his reshoot.

We survived the situation and the day and all the other shooters had a great time and we didn't get rained on. But it's always the shooters problem especially when they wear BIG CLUNKY BOOTS!!!

Paul, you still crack me up.

I didn't realize you were considering my Big Clunky Boots. I thought the problem was my Big Clunky Mouth.



Thanks for the clarification. I shall take the issue under advisement.

Zumbo - Poster Boy for the Gun Grabbers

03-20-2007 - A Bit of Truth about Assault Weapons : Senator Carl Levin: News Release

Remember The Great Zumbo Uproar of a few weeks back, when Jim Zumbo spoke out of ignorance about "black rifles" and destroyed his career?

Remember that he took a close second look at his insular prejudices and spent two weeks sending apologies to every media outlet which would still accept his material?

Did any of us think about how the anti-gun fanatics would jump on his words and turn them against the RKBA principles which Zumbo supposedly embraced?

The legacy of Zumbo's ill-advised opinion has hit bottom and went [splat!]

Read the article. Don't spit into the wind. It didn't work for Zumbo, and now ... if there was anything left of his so-called career ... it is toast now that he is now the official poster-boy for the Gun Grabbers.

I sure hope Zumbo enjoys leaning over and grabbing his ankles, because that is the legacy which he has created for himself.

Extend Into Infinity

Tigers and Lions and Bears, oh my!

A few weeks I talked about the proposed 2008 version of USPSA rules, with special reference to Fault Lines (which) "... are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity".

I almost lost a very good friend there; the MD who approved a stage with such an assumption. Fortunately, he is a reasonable and thinking man who is unlikely to take criticism personally.

But he did manage to take his revenge upon me this past weekend, and I must say I enjoyed it immensely.

I refer here to the Dundee Practical Shooters' monthly club match, and specifically to Stage 6 ("Guard Shack 47"), which provided the perfect illustration of precisely WHY the current "... deemed to extend rearwards to infinity" clause is the subject of so much objective -- and erroneous -- interpretation.

Our squad ("Fourth Squad") came onto the stage while the previous squad ("Third Squad") was still shooting it. We watched them, and discovered that those last few competitors engaged the stage in the same way; lateral movement, not 'movement in depth'.

A short description of the stage is in order:

The competitor begins in a "guard hut" (a 4' x 4' covered platform, enclosed only in the frontal view which features a 2' square shooting port). Through the front port, you can engage a six-plate rack and an IPSC target on both sides. 3o feet on either side are paired IPSC targets, the view of which is partially obscured by a vision barrier. A Charge Line (note the nomenclature ... there will be a test!) runs laterally from the front of the Guard Shack along the 180 line to a point approximately uprange of the far IPSC target, on each side.

There was no rear charge line behind the guard shack, which would have limited rearward movement (away from the targets)!

Fault lines extend eight or ten feet back uprange from each end of this charge line, and these fault lines are 'stubbed off' with 3' charge lines. These short charge lines point toward the center of the bay, and (according to the Match Director and the Stage Designer, both of which were members of Squad 4, are "deemed to extend to infinity".

Why were these "charge lines" not extended as one contiuous, physical foot-barrier from one fault line to its opposite?

1. They were defined as "extending to infinity".
2. The club didn't have enough 2x4 boards to place, representing a continuous charge line.

While we were going through our walk-through, Norm the Ungrateful casually suggested:

Look, all you have to do is shoot the center array from the Guard Shack, then fall back a couple of steps and [plink-plink] shoot the left two targets, move a step to the right and [plink-pling] shoot the right two targets. Why would you want to do all of this running back and forth stuff? It's just a waste of time?

(Or words to that effect.)

I looked at the stage, nodded my head in a manner reminiscent of Clark Griswold when presented with the grandeur of the Grand Canyon in "National Lampoon's 'Vacation'", and decided that this is the way I would shoot this stage.

The strategy offered a number of advantages:

• It was faster ... because it required a LOT less time during movement;
• It was risky (because of the hard-cover steel IPSC-target partially covering plates on the plate rack), and therefore a more challenging approach with the potential to reward the bold and skilled competitor;
• With any luck at all, the Range Officer would be forced to make a judgement call which was completely unsupported by physical evidence if he thought I had violated the 'extended to infinity' but physically absent charge line and ALSO establish the difference between a "Charge Line" and a "Fault Line" in the minds of my friends and neighbors;
• I would get to request an Arbitration on a club match;
  
• Somewhere along the line, somebody (maybe not even me!) would get pissed off, and;
• The resulting discussion would firmly establish the reasoning why assuming that "fault lines (may be) ... deemed to extend ... to infinity" is NOT sufficient justification for scrimping on stage prop material.

Note the elipses (...) in the last sentence. It's important.

Therefore, when I shot the stage, I didn't make any lateral movement. I shot the center plate rack, and the bracketting IPSC targets, from within the Guard Shack. Then I took too giant steps backwards and engaged the two IPSC targets on the far left side.

Moving one pace to the right, I engaged the two IPSC targets to the right, and I was done.

The first comment from the RO:

Time: 14.63 seconds. Six steel.

The second comment from the RO:

Eight Procedural Penalies.

This is my cue:

"What are the penalties for?"

"Faulting the rear fault line!"

Geek:
"Huh? What fault line?" (Stomping around as if looking for a Fault line.) I can't see it. I can't feel it. It isn't there. How could I have faulted a fault line that isn't there?"

RO:

"The fault lines are deemed to extend into infinity!"

Geek:

"But how can you ding me on a foot fault when there isn't a fault line there?"

When the RO was adamant and unyielding on the point, I looked around and found the Match Director, Paul the Soccer Coach.

I requested an arbitration. He said "it's the RO's call".

"Yes", I said, "And I formally request that you call for an arbitration committee under USPSA rules."

Someone suggested that I would have to pony up a $100 Arbitration Fee. (Actually, it's not a fee. It's a deposit; if I win the arbitration, my deposit would be refunded.) "Okay, I'll write a check. I request arbitration."

Then Barsoom Bill, who was NOT the Match Director, asked me under what rule I would protest the call.

"I don't know the rule number, but I know the rule. I don't have a rule book handy; give me your rule book and I'll find it."

Barsoom Bill exceeded all expectations when he disappeared for a couple of minutes and returned with the most decrepit USPSA Rule Book I've seen since the 14th edition (2000) "Toilet paper" rule book version. I was ecstatic. Barsoom Bill, in the three years since it has been published, has obviously worked the current "January, 2004" USPSA rule book hard. I knew at that moment that I was dealing with people who had a complete and abiding respect for the rules.

That was all I needed.

While I was reading the rule book (without my reading glasses) in an attempt to find my mitigating rule, the match continued. The RO had scored my targets, and my score sheet reflected eight procedural penalties; however, it had not been presented for my initials, and so it was not yet accepted.

Three competitors shot the stage while waiting for me to complete my discussion with the MD. Every one of them used the "non-traditional" approach of using 'in-depth' movement (rather than lateral movement) to engage the far lateral IPSC targets. Every time, I commented to the Match Director: "I think he violated the non-existant rear 'fault line'; I protest." (My protest was implied to be on the grounds that the rules were not being imposed impartially; actually, it was a general protest that -- lacking a physical, visible representation of the "CHARGE LINE", it was impossible for the competitor, the Range Officer or even the spectators to definitively determine whether the competitor had violated the non-existant Charge Line ... which was repeatedly and erroneously referred to as a 'fault line'.)

One of the competitors was dinged for 8 procedural penalties by the RO. I said "I don't think he violated the non-existant rear 'fault line'; I protest on his behalf."

Finally, after three competitors had shot the stage, I cited the following to the Match Director:

2.2.1 Charge Lines and Fault Lines – Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Charge and Fault Lines is permitted. Charge Lines and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters (0.79 inches) above ground level. This will provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting. Fault Lines and Charge Lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they remain consistent throughout the match.

2.2.1.1 Charge Lines are used to restrict unreasonable movement by competitors toward or away from targets.

2.2.1.2 Fault Lines are used to force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers. They may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of these barriers. Fault Lines should be a minimum of 1 meter (3.28 feet) in length and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, they are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

Please note the applicability of existing rules as they come into play:

2.2.1 - both Charge Lines and Fault Lines must be represented by physical barriers, to "... provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting." There existed no "Physical (or) visible reference" for either me or the Range Officer to determine whether I had been guilty of "inadvertent faulting".

2.2.1.1 - defines the difference between "Charge Lines" and "Fault Lines". Because my movement was decidedly not "lateral", the rules for "Fault Lines" clearly did not apply.

2.2.1.2 - is applicable only to "Fault Lines", so a "Charge Line" (limiting movement "... toward or away from targets ...") may not be "... deemed to extend rearwards to infinity."

Summary:

• Under the current rules, there is a definitive difference between a "Charge Line" (regulating movement toward and away from targets) and a "Fault Line" (regulating lateral movement, generally understood as defining the area behind a barrier.)
• The phrase 'deemed to extend rearwards to infinity' is so full of possibilities to misinterpretation AND misapplication that we are better off without its inclusion in the rule book.
• The proposed 2008 version of the rule book removes the definition of "Charge Lines", and replaces it entirely with a single definition of "Fault Lines". However, in the process it fails to address the topic described in excruciating detail here.

The current confusion between "Charge Lines" and "Fault Lines" is subject to innocent interpretation, as we have seen here.

However, without the distinction between the two lines, we run the risk of even more misunderstandings and misinterpretation in 2008.

The "extend rearward to infinity" clause will obviously not address the situation where competitors are restricted from rearward movement in order to engage several, OR ALL, targets from a single position.

This contradition between intent and rules interpretation is bound to cause problems in future matches.

I was able (perhaps maliciously, perhaps in order to make a point) to delay a simple club match because of this simple misunderstanding.

When, in 2008, there are no rules to guide us ... what delay might ensue from the lack of this simple definition in terms? How many otherwise-acceptable stages might be thrown out because the design is faulty?

If USPSA was unable to avoid this contretemps today, how are they planning to avoid it next year?

In illustration of the advantage of a rear "charge line", I offer this video which clearly shows how a rear "charge line" may avoid these problems.




(NOTE: Squire Tomasie and I both incurred 8 procedural penalties during our original efforts, because we had been judged to have violated rear charge lines; eventually we were required to reshoot the stage after a rear charge line had been added to the stage. Both of us added about three seconds to our stage time on the reshoot, significantly lowering our stage factors.

Final match results are available here.)

The Shooter - not Bob the Nailer

This isn't a 'review' ... I'm just a pencil-necked Geek and have no pretention to critical capability. But I did mention that I was planning to see the Hollywood treatement of Stephen Hunter's initial "Bob the Nailer" movie, and I thought I owed it to myself to fulfill the implied promise (to myself) to voice my impressions.

The book (Point of Impact) was first published in February of 1993, about 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War. That would have made Bob Lee Swagger about 39 years old, and assumes he would still be active and in the prime of his life.

It's now 2007, and if the story were presented (as Hollywood decided it should be) as a 'contemporary' movie, Bob would be over 60 years old and he would look a lot like ... me. Not a terribly intimidating figure of a man, and certainly not an action hero.

So instead of a Marine Sniper in the late Vietnam era, they changed him to a Marine Sniper in an Ethiopian "Black Operation" ... circa approximately 2004.

Okay, I can live with that.

They changed Bob's territory from Arkansas to Vietnam. His spotter, Donny, is married to a woman named "Sarah" instead of "Julie", and instead of being a nurse she is a schoolteacher.

Okay, I can live with that too.

Place names were changed (for instance, the 'presidential speech' takes place in Philidelpha instead of New Orleans). Nick Memphis is not a 10-year veteran FBI failed sniper, but three weeks out of the FBI Academy. You'll see a lot more details, and entire chapters, either changed or entirely omitted.

That only proves that the detail ... including hundreds of pages of explanation and motivation ... is much easier to present in novel form than in book form.

Still, even in this much abridged and abreviated form, most of the essential elements remain. They're merely reduced to two-dimension glossy instead of rich exposition and the glorious, colorful exposition of an excellent wordsmith such as Stephen Hunter.

I have four major complaints, though.

First, Hollywood can't resist taking Liberal digs at the current administration, such as the real Presidential Sniper's comments suggesting that the Abu Grahib affair only prosecuted/penalized the 'little people'. In reality, they relieved a General, so the presumption is that the fault went as far as the White House.

Second, the scene at the country house of the real Presidential Sniper ("Michael Sandor" ... his character's real name is not memorable by Americans who expect fewer consonants in a name) is centered on improvised munitions rather than true sniper ability.

Third, the penultimate denoument of the movie does recognize Bob's defense that the supposed sniper weapon he used in the frame-up is inoperable, but he mentions that he has replaced the firing pin of ALL of his rifles ... "I do that every time I use them". That suggests a level of paranoia which is inconsistent with The Original Bob.

Fourth and finally, the last scene of the movie has Bob ambushing The Senator, The Colonel, and their remaining henchmen in a mountain cabin, in an orgy of cold blooded murder which I find appalling. This lends entirely too much credence to the Liberal image of gunowners as unbalanced, antisocial individualists who are potential murderers.

Go ahead and watch the movie. Stephen Hunter deserves the money, even the movie you see isn't the story he wrote. That's not a surprise; at least, not as much as that the film stars a felon who is forbidden by law to as much as touch a firearm (Mark Wahlberg) and who incidently has made public anti-gun statements, and Danny Glover (who is apparently an outspoken anti-gun spokesman.)

The only real surprise is that they didn't cast Michael Douglas as "The Senator". That would have completed the triumvirant.

The Shooter

The sniper movie based on Stephen Hunters Bob Lee Swagger book "Point of Impact" opens today. I'm a weekend-matinee-going kind of movie viewer, so I won't be in the theater Friday. And I have an IPSC match on Saturday, which means I'll be in the 9th Street Theater Sunday afternoon waiting to see how much of the original story remains in the movie.

Fish sent me a couple of links yesterday to early critiques of the movie which were not universally complementary.

The gist seems to be that the movie stays fairly close to the book in the better (early) half of the movie, but loses all continuity in the finale. Big surprise, huh?

In the source book, Swagger is a Viet Nam Marine Sniper. The book was written in the early 1990's, so by 2007 that made Swagger a middle-aged hero who may have become too old a dog to hunt.

Put another 15-20 years on our hero, and he's going to end up looking something like ... me. (Check the profile picture. Not an awe inspring profile eh?) So the first change has Bob Lee a veteran of a Middle-Eastern conflict, which takes the worst of 30 years off his age and makes Marky Mark a reasonable choice to play Swagger.

From that point on, the story is updated to fit the recent American history in a manner reminiscent of the swings of a pendulum which can't stay out of the way of directorial boosts.

By the end of the movie, the director has so lost track of the original story that he has to bend over and squat out an ending. No, I haven't seen the movie and I'm not prescient, but I've seen what Hollywood does to books and it isn't always a pretty sight. Have I mentioned the similarity between Hollywood treatments of 'action' books and sausage making?

I'm not so old and cranky that I'll boycot this movie just because some ex-L.A. Street Tagger can't get the ending right. I expect it to fall apart eventually, but the good news from the pre-release critical reviews I've read is they hold it together until right at the very end.

It's okay. I know how the story really ends (SWMBO and I reread "Point of Impact" within the past two weeks), and anybody who does even a fair job of paying homage to Hunter's plot is doing okay.

I just hope they don't lose the big scene at the Baptist Church. Oh, and is it too much to hope that they get Swagger's revenge on Payne at the end?

Watch this space.

Washington Gun Show Loophole

March 5, 2007

Gun show check bill moves along

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer chortles in its accustomed glee at the discomfort of Washington gun-owners who naively believe that non-dealers need not abide by the Brady Bill.

That federal law, which "... applied only to transfers from a dealer licensed to sell guns by the Treasury Dept to a private individual ... ", will (if this law passes) be enforced also against private individuals if the sale concludes on the site of a Gun Show.

Oregon, I shamefully admit, passed a similar bill a few years ago. There's no evidence that it has reduced the number of firearms in the possession of felons and others forbidden by law to own them.

As we use to say about the Federal 55 mph Speed Limit Law in the 1970's: "It's not a good idea, it's just the law."

Now Washington is jumping on the Gun-Grabber bandwagon with full enthusiasm, and my guess is that this bill WILL pass unless the good citizens of Washington stand up for their rights.

A couple of days ago, speaking of the Stealth Gun-Grabber Bill (SB 1012) now introduced to the Oregon State Senate, I mentioned that Washington citizens ought to pay close attention to RKBA impositions passed in Oregon, because as sure as DemocRats are Socialists, any gun-law passed in Oregon will soon show up in Washington.

It's just a political fact of life that The Pacific NorthWet is no longer the easy going Land of the Free it was 40 years ago. In the face of increasing liberal influence by the hippie protestors of the 60's who grew up to become the academia and legislature of the 90's (of COURSE they all got a law degree! Remember Billary?), the communes have spawned communists all over the upper-left-hand corner of the country.

Sell your Confederate money, boys, the South PNW will NOT rise again.

Unless, that is, you take steps now to become politicized, contract your legislators, and howl.

Quote from the Seattle P-I article:

In Oregon, where voters approved an initiative to close the gun show loophole in 2000, the effect of the measure is less than clear. Lawmakers who supported it say it has made a huge difference, but Portland police are unsure the city's lower crime rates mean fewer criminals are getting their hands on guns.

Before Oregon implemented its gun show loophole measure, which 62
percent of voters approved, Portland police spent three years tracing guns used in gang violence. Of those that could be traced, they found that 27 percent of them came from gun shows.

"Gun shows were always two things: a fun thing for a family to do on a Saturday morning, and a place for criminals to get guns," said Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who is chairwoman of Oregon's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Now it's only one of those things." Portland police spokesman Brian Schmautz said the city has seen reduced crime since the measure passed, but its criminals don't seem to have any more difficulty getting guns than before.

Here's something to think about:

There ain't no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

There's just a lot of loopy politicians. We've got 'em. So do you.

SB1012 - Not Ginny? Stealth Bill?

I've been checking my statscounter account, looking for some idea of who is picking up on SB1012 (see here and here.)

Curiously, I found a reference to it on a forum called "JobsRelatedStuff".

There's apparently a lot of interest here.

But I found one post from a person who claims to have received a reply from the office of Ginny Burdick:

Hello. Thank you for contacting the office of Senator Ginny Burdick. Senator Burdick has read your email and asked me to respond.

Senate Bill 1012 is not her bill, nor did she introduce this legislation into committee or legislative counsel. Senate Bill 1012 is the product of a constituent of Salem and he had the bill introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is not Senator Burdick's constituent nor did he approach Senator Burdick about this legislation. At this time, Senator Burdick has not scheduled this bill and it is not likely to receive a hearing in the near future.

Should you have any further questions, either to this bill or to any other legislation, please feel free to contact me on this issue. Thank you again for contacting our office and please continue to participate in the legislative process.

Best,

--
Jordan Rash
Legislative Assistant
State Senator Ginny Burdick
District 18
Office: 503-986-1718
Fax: 503-986-1080
sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us

A later poster on this forum related his own experience:

I just called her office and got off the phone with Jordan, he gave me more of the same. I told him where she can stick the bill (politely of course) and he also brought up assault weapons. I almost commented on it, but I decided since theres no legislation pending, there was no reason to.

He also told me that this came from a grudge that this guy had against a range here in salem. If that is the case, this legislation is an extreme overreaction.

My bet is that it was introduced by a brady campaign employee and that Ginny "allowed" it in.


It's very interesting, because this email explicitly demonstrates that she know's she's on a slippery slope in battling for gun control, she's obviously being careful not to take too much at a time here, and it will be interesting to say the least, to watch that play out.

... and still later, from another forum member:

Yes, I heard the originator on the radio yesterday, and actually got a response from Burdick today. The bill was initiated by a neighbor of the gun club down in Salem. He was all PO'd that rounds leave the range on a regular basis, and said he can't go out in his back yard for fear of being shot, and that his next door had been shot five times.

I cannot, of course, confirm the accuracy of these observations.

However, as far as I know there is only one 'outdoor' range in Salem, Oregon, and it is a little-visited range with very conservative leadership. I've never visited this particular range, so I cannot say more.

I don't know if this information is accurate, or complete. But if it is true that "... the product of a constituent of Salem and he had the bill introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is not Senator Burdick's constituent nor did he approach Senator Burdick."

... then the question remains which State Senator sponsored the bill. That information is not attached to the bill, which is an unusual, but not unheard of circumstance.

I have been unable to determine the author or the sponsor(s) of this bill. If you can positively answer these questions, I invite you to write me (email address at the bottom of this page). Please provide internet links to documentation, or have hardcopy available for mailing or hand-to-hand transmittal.


This is, indeed, a Stealth Bill.

Whatever happened to transparency in government? Of course, this is a Democrat controlled Senate, which suggests (to me) that only lip-service will be paid to the concept of accountability.

Comments?

The 2nd Amendment - Applied Locally?

So you think you know and understand the Bill of Rights, eh?

How does it apply to local government?

No, let's not talk about 'goverment' at even a municiple level. How does it apply to your college football team, or your neighborhood?

Case #1: The Hurricanes

Shannon: Firearms will not be tolerated

By Jorge Milian

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

CORAL GABLES — Randy Shannon has issued a straightforward warning to his University of Miami football players:

Get caught carrying a firearm and your days as a Hurricane are over.

After two shooting incidents involving UM players last year, Shannon plans to enforce a "zero-tolerance'' policy regarding weapons.

"You get caught with a firearm, you're dismissed from the football team," UM's coach said Monday.

"They're gone. They know the rules. It's not hard rules. It's to protect them."

Asked about his players' constitutional right to own firearms, Shannon said: "I'm thinking about the University of Miami and the kids. When you have a firearm, there's a 50-50 chance that you're going to get hurt. So I said, 'Let's not put ourselves in those situations.'

"Make it a 100 percent chance that you're not going to hurt nobody and that nobody is going to get hurt."

You can't argue with the good intentions of Coach Shannon.

Last July, UM safety Willie Cooper was shot in the buttocks by an unknown assailant outside his home in South Miami. Teammate Brandon Meriweather, who shared the home with Cooper, pulled a pistol from his pants and fired three times at the gunman, who escaped.

Police determined that Meriweather acted in self-defense, and no arrests have been made in the case.

On Nov. 7, UM defensive tackle Bryan Pata was shot and killed at his apartment complex shortly after a Hurricanes practice. Pata, who police say owned several weapons, was shot in the back of the head and the case remains unsolved.

Meriweather, who has completed his collegiate eligibility, understands Shannon's policy.

"Guns don't do nothing but get you in trouble," Meriweather said. "There really is no use for a gun in college. You've got to get rid of them. It's no time for them. If you're a team player, you won't have no problem getting rid of them."

I don't think I agree with this statement. Meriweather demonstrably drove off an attacker and arguably saved the life of his team-mate. Pata had nobody watching his ... um ... back, as Cooper did. It seems to me that this may be a case FOR ownership if defensive firearms. But that's just my RKBA prejudice speaking.

Case #2: Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents

March 19, 2007 02:15 PDT


ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless.

Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property.

"It thought it was ironic that they say you can't have something when the United States government says you can," said resident Cristina Salajanu.

Salajanu would like to give her neighborhood management company a history lesson.

"I think it's unconstitutional," Salajanu said. "They can't tell you what to own or not to own in your own house."

Salajanu is talking about the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It's been an American freedom for 215 years but Salajanu and other residents said it's been taken away from them.

"Something needs to be done," she said.

Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property.

The residents protested, citing their Second Amendment rights. The 'village' responded positively ... more or less.

Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village, would not make an on-camera comment about the gun policy but said they plan on changing the rule soon to allow firearms on the property.

However, they would make it illegal to fire those guns, which residents say is still unconstitutional.

Let me get this straight. Now the property manager is saying that you can possess a gun, but you cannot fire it?

Aren't there already laws against discharging a firearm within city limits ... which I assume this is? And if you discharge it in a self-defense situation, isn't that justifiable by law? Does the community, then, consider itself justified in requiring the resident (who own their homes, withing the codicile of the community) leave? Can they DO that?

The Constitution and "Other Rights"
We think of the Constitution as limiting the powers of the Federal Government, usually. But we also recognize that it defines Civil Rights at every level of government ... in everything but the Second Amendment.

For example, we have the right of peaceful assembly, and free speech, under the Constitution. If your college or property manage decides that you cannot stand on a street corner and propound your political views to passersby, is your action not defensible under the Constitution?

Well ... yes. In fact, recent legal actions against College 'Free Speech Zones' have established that the Bill of Rights is a powerful threat to colleges who seek to prohibit 'hateful speech'. In fact, even non-verbal expression is protected, when academia is aggressively confronted.

It appears that the US Constitution is not merely a limit of the Federal Government, but in fact protects our rights in any venue.


Still, we continue to see these infringements imposed by non-governmental organizations as if the Constitution has no bearing on our day-to-day life.

This is, of course, most often (although not exclusively, since Freedom of Speech may now be identified as a 'hate crime') applied to the Second Amendment: " ... The Right To Bear Arms ...".

What do YOU think?


.

Oregon SB1012 on The Shooting Wire

If you're not already subscribed to The Shooting Wire, you absolutely must, without delay, go here and subscribe. Do it now. We'll wait.

This is one of the most elegant 'newsletter' subscriptions avaialble anywhere. On a day-to-day basis you can go to their website and see the current issue ... but when a new issue comes out the entire content is replaced. I very much recommend that you get your own subscription, so you don't miss anything.

You've seen several articles extensively quoted on this blog, and you'll see them again. Generally, I look for the feature article (which I suspect, but can't prove, is written by the editor Jim Shepherd.) But I will no longer quote 'extensively'; if you don't have a subscription, you'll miss most of the point of this and future articles generated in response to something they have written about. The articles are copyrighted, and I am loath to infringe upon their rights to original content more than I have so far.

In this case, The Shooting Wire has picked up on the news of Oregon SB 1012, and the write-up is superior to mine.

However, assuming you have read the original SW article, there is one paragraph which is, in my opinion, a little misleading.

On the surface, the measure would seem to protect range owners from the irresponsible acts of shooters. Looking deeper, the owner, operator or lessee must be in compliance with all noise ordinances existing at the time construction of the rang (sic) began or noise control law that was existing and the allegation is from shooting activity between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m (with an exception for law enforcement training purposes) or the allegation did not result from activity on Christmas or Thanksgiving Day.

This statement is incorrect:

... the owner, operator or lessee must be in compliance with all noise ordinances existing at the time construction of the rang (sic) began or noise control law that was existing ...

In fact, the original law stated that the range complied with ordinances existing at the time construction of the range began. I have no argument with that, it seems a reasonable expectation.

The new law has changed that, and would require that the range is in compliance with noise ordinances existing at the time of the infraction.

That means that, instead of 'grandfathering' the law (accepting that the range was constructed to meet noise ordinance requirements when it was constructed), the range must now meet noise ordinances enacted after the range was constructed.

The implication is that a city or county (was: state) could enact ANY noice ordinance no matter now burdensome or difficult to achieve in compliance

A good example of the consequences is in another part of the bill. Now, range patrons are essentially prohibited from shooting on a range on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day ... presumably (although it is not specifically stated) because it is 'noisy'. Before, the law regulating shooting ranges did not prohibit 'noisy' shooting on these holidays, so if a local, county or state law was enacted to effect this prohibition ... shooting ranges would have been excepted.

This is why we say that, when you write or phone your state senator, you should urge them to reject the entire bill, not just the obviously egregious Section 1 (which contains the requirement for a 'rangemaster', and the requirement to record personal information and firearms registration).

If Section 1 is deleted, but the rest of the bill is allowed to be enacted into law, it will still have the effect of imposing an intolerable burden on shooting ranges. No other endeavor, such as heavy manufacturing, is the target (sorry) of such narrow legislation at this time.

For those of you who are not conversant with the subject, you can see my original comments here.

For those of you who are not subscribers to The Shooting Wire, and have no access to their article ... please email me (my email address is at the bottom of every page) and I will forward my copy of the newsletter unless I receive more requests than I can reasonable be expected to accomodate. I don't think I'll receive that many requests, so don't be shy ... it really is a very well written article, and worth the reading. I regret that I can't quote it in full, but I have no way to request permission to do so.

Please include your full email address, and the URL for this article (cut&paste from your browser window) to facilitate your request.

DC Gun Ban Overthrown, as seen by The Brady Bunch

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence


In light of the recent (last week, as of this writing) Federal Court overthrow of the total gun ban in Washington DC, I had originally intended this article to present court decisions from this ("Parker" thank you "Arms & The Law") case and commonly referenced ("Miller" notes from guncite and FindLaw, including this reference to the findings and references citing this case; "Emerson", including this from UCLA Law School) decisions commonly cited in similar cases.

[Note the Washington, DC, is a city which has repeatedly either had the highest homicide/assault/violent crime statistics in the country, or has been a close contender. This is in spite of the fact that it also has had one of the most restrictive regulations concerning private ownership of firearms, which most Gun Grabbers proposed as the most effective way to reduce "gun crime".]

But somewhere along the line of research, I followed the trail of citations to the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence op-ed article regarding this "Parker" decision.

The comments submitted by readers of this article are almost universally condemnatory of the Brady Bunch official response. I only read the first 100+ notes, and it was completely pro-gun until the emotional "Kelli" popped up with a series of ad hominem statements which attacked the pro-gun folks personally instead of responding to their talking points.

I laughed, I cried, a shouted with joy because the Brady Bunch had presented their case against what they referred to as "Judicial Activism" -- and left their blog article open to comments from the public. The public responded appropriately, and in the process revealed the gun-control position (in the person of the sad "Kelli") as having no ability to present a believable case for their position.

I'll go read the entire list of comments (there are 475 of them to date, and you dare challenge me for "Geek-Length" writing?) as soon as I let you know that you really should go there and read that.

I'm only surprised that The Brady Bunch has left the comments about their thinly disguised hate-piece on the Internet.

But if they do take it down ... I have copied the page. No, I don't expect to ever post it; I'm pretty sure that there are some copyright issues if I publish THEIR blog article and the resulting comments under the auspices of MY internet connection.

I'm just keeping it for me. If The Brady Bunch lose heart and delete the whole thing, I still have my copy, so I can go back and reread the whole thing.

And I'll chuckle.

Stage Procedures in Theory and Practice

An incident which occurred at a local club this month prompts my comments on the Theory and Practice of Stage Procedures and Courses of Fire. The relevant sections of the old and new Rulebooks that I’ll be discussing are:

2.3 Modifications to Course Construction
3.2 Written Stage Briefings

Just for the record, the basic concept under discussion is fairness. Every shooter at a match has the expectation and right to course challenge equality with every other shooter. To insure that equality, the match organizers are required to establish the physical construction of the stage, and the written stage procedures prior to anyone shooting the stage. If modifications to the stage equipment or written requirements are subsequently made, for clarity, consistency, or safety [3.2.3], any change in competitive requirement must be negated by requiring earlier competitors to reshoot the stage, or, if that is impossible, the stage and all associated scores must be deleted from the match [2.3.4].

There are probably as many different ways to verbally describe a course of fire as there are ROs and shooters viewing it. The rules attempt to get stage designers to crystallize their concept of the stage by stipulating at least a minimum of information that must appear in the written stage briefing.

3.2.1 A written stage briefing approved by the Range Master must be posted at each course of fire prior to commencement of the match. This briefing will take precedence over any course of fire information published or otherwise communicated to competitors in advance of the match, and it must provide the following minimum information:

• Scoring Method
• Targets (type & number)
• Minimum number of rounds
• The handgun ready condition
• Start position
• Time starts: audible or visual signal
• Procedure

Note that Start Position and Procedure are the crux of a course of fire. These are often what makes or breaks a COF. Every shooter attempts to follow the written word, while gaining a competitive advantage if possible. In those cases where savvy shooters find a unique way to save time or increase shooting efficiency, they can produce hit factor results superior to the other shooters, and gain a competitive advantage. The course designer, for his part, tries to write the briefing to constrain the shooter to a pre-conceived set of options. These competing goals are an integral part of the game we play.

However, when one shooter does identify a competitive advantage, you can be sure that subsequent shooters will also use that method, if they have the equipment, physical ability and/or skills necessary to make it work. [E.g., a ‘sweet spot’ for an open shooter might be totally useless to a revolver shooter, because the open shooter might need the precision of optical sights and the bullet capacity of a 170 mm mag, while the revolver guy in the same spot would have to do multiple standing reloads and engage distant target with iron sights.]

This competitive advantage situation is the REASON that the rulebook includes restrictions requiring written stage briefings before anyone shoots the course, restrictions on modifications during the match, and stipulations to insure competitive equality if and when modifications are necessary.

Case Study of How Not To Run A Stage

[Note: While drawn from real life, the below scenario is fictional, as I wouldn’t want to characterize anyone with the derogative term “Range Nazi” undeservedly.]

The stage is a typical field course. We’re going to concentrate on the starting position and engagement of the first array after the start signal, concentrating on how the COF writeup started, how it evolved, and the concepts of fairness that were trashed along the way.


At the back of the bay is a typical cafeteria table, with a soft floppy doll prop on it. To the left of the table about 5 feet is an L-shaped barricade, with the short leg parallel to the 180 with a port in it, and the long end headed downrange. From the table, you cannot see the array of 3 targets which are visible through the port. After shooting this array, the shooter is expected to drop the doll in a bin attached to the barricade, then travel further downrange through the gap between the table and the barricade. In that free fire zone, they engage additional targets and poppers, but that is extraneous to this discussion. For distance estimation, someone standing at the middle of the table is a good 10 feet from a point where you can see the 3 target array.

On Saturday, stages are being set up for the match, and the ROs plan to shoot the match, so they can handle the “regular” shooters on Sunday. For this particular stage, the written Start Position is: “Standing behind table A, holding doll prop in weak hand.” The Stage Procedure is: “Upon start signal, draw and engage array A [the 3 targets], then deposit doll in the bin, and proceed to engage remaining targets as they become visible.”


On Saturday, after the stages are set up for the match, the ROs begin shooting the match, and the first few shoot this stage by standing at the table, picking up the doll, and waiting there for the starting beep, then running over to the port to shoot the first array. Shooter C, who is a RM and experienced shooter from another club, has been helping this relatively new club’s match staff learn the ropes of putting on a match. When given the instruction to ‘Load and make ready’, he picks up the doll, and proceeds to walk over to a position with a clear view through the port in the barricade of the target array, but which is behind the rear edge of the table, where he indicates, “Shooter is ready”. [See green box in picture below, where a green line indicates the rear edge of the table.]

Of course, the RO says, “You can’t do that.” And likewise, Shooter C counters with the news that (1) he is behind [to the rear of] the table, and (2) nothing in the stage description says he has to be near the table, so (3) this is where he chooses to start the stage. There is an obvious time advantage to starting the stage from that point, as he can engage and shoot the array single-handed [as intended by the stage designer], and not have to spend precious time running from the table laterally to the port before starting to shoot. Needless to say, every subsequent shooter in the RO squad choose to start the stage in the same manner.


This is where we get into “fairness”, “equal competitive advantage”, and the rules governing changes in stage procedures. On Sunday, Shooter C is in attendance with several other shooters at this stage. The RO reads the stage description, and says the starting position is, “Standing behind table A, holding doll prop in weak hand, with strong hand touching paster.” And now there is a paster on the right rear corner of the table!

This is where the following hypothetical dialog [or reasonable approximation thereof] ensues:
Shooter C: “Excuse me, Mr RO, but hasn’t this stage description changed since yesterday.”

RO R.N.: “Yes, I decided to tighten up the course description to eliminate gaming the stage.”

Shooter C: “Oh, then I assume that all the ROs who shot the stage yesterday have already reshot it under the new course description.”

RO R.N.: “No. There wasn’t any need to do that.”

Shooter C: “Do you realize that there is a considerable competitive disadvantage to starting the stage from that location behind the table, compared to how it was shot by most of the ROs yesterday?”

R.N.: “Yeah. So what. This is how everybody is shooting it today.”

Shooter C: “Do you realize that the stage will have to be tossed from the match unless those ROs reshoot it under the same rules as everybody is forced to follow today.”

R.N.: “Nobody’s going to reshoot it. And this squad is going to shoot it the way I say they’re going to shoot it.”

Shooter C: “I would like to see the written stage description.”

R.N.: “You can’t see the stage description, I just told you the stage description.”

Shooter C: “But I just want to check that it says what you told us.”

R.N.: [A little heatedly] “You know what? There is no written stage description. What I tell you is what the stage description is.”

Shooter C: “O---kay”.

And in this squad is a left-handed shooter. When he gets up to the table, he innocently asks, “Don’t you think it’s a little unfair that I’m 2 feet further away from the port when I have my strong hand on that paster?” Whereupon RO R.N. slaps another paster in a spot roughly 2 feet to the left of the other paster for him.

What Have We Learned

Obviously, this stage should have been tossed from the match after the stage description was changed, unless the Saturday-shooting ROs reshot it with the “touching the paster” restriction. Barring that, the stage description should not have been changed from Sat to Sun. The new batch of shooters on Sunday might not recognize the time savings of starting in the area of that imaginary green box, but that would be their failing. The course description modification, as enforced, imposed a significant time penalty on all of the Sunday shooters, requiring 2.3.3 or 2.3.4 actions to restore equal competitiveness and fairness. If the Range Nazi took it upon himself to make the modifications to the written course description [as was possible], the Range Master and Match Director should have been called into the ‘discussion’. If the RM and MD were also involved in the change, and sanctioned it, then they need to have their duties and responsibilities pointed out by a higher authority. This might be best accomplished after the fact, in a calmer environment, such as at a sectional meeting of club officials.

Basically, the main lesson is that each club should have experienced shooters in the match crew, to evaluate each stage fully before the first shot is fired. They look for shoot-throughs, possible 180 traps, possible RO traps [where the shooter is forced to reverse course or back up, possibly threatening to collide with the RO, or turning with gun in hand toward the RO]. They look for unusual ways to approach the stage which might save a shooter significant time, either by traveling less distance than others, or finding a sweet spot that allows shooting a bunch of targets with little or no movement. It also means reading through the written stage description to eliminate ambiguity. The intent of the RO should always be to provide each shooter with an identical challenge, through consistent application of the rules.

After a while, stage designers learn what constitutes a bullet-proof starting position, and fair course procedures. Usually, you want everyone starting at the same location, in the same orientation, for the start. That means setting up fixed spots for “heels touching the marks”, or, facing uprange, “toes touching the marks”, or fixed hand positions, like “palms of hands on the Xs of the barricade”. Remember to accommodate right and left-handed shooters, not only in starting positions by also in presenting equal difficulty shots through the COF for each handedness. You are never going to be completely fair to both, but you should try.

Another Addition to the RuleBook

Since we’re discussing written stage descriptions, I noticed that the proposed rules include a new section, 3.2.5, reproduced below.

3.2.5 A written stage briefing must comply with the current USPSA rules.

You might think this rule is unnecessarily redundant. However, I want to tell you that many of the course changes I’ve seen at our club are taken in order to comply with the rules. And our stage designers have been doing this for a while. And many times, I’ll hear someone at another club say,

“We can do it any way we want, because this is just a Level I match. That may be happening now because of rule US1.1.5.1, which state “Level I matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitations.”

Note that this current rule does NOT say you can ignore all the rules, even though some people are interpreting it that way. Now [if passed], rule 3.2.5 makes it explicitly clear that the rules must be followed in all stages, and this will be mandatory for all levels of matches in the U.S. [Local, State/Section, and Area/Nationals]. Also, the proposed rules are much more explicit in the section 1.1.5, describing what “freestyle” means and what is allowed in Local matches.

Example: You can’t now or under the proposed rules have a stage that says, “Engage target array with 2 rounds each freestyle, perform a mandatory reload and engage target array with 2 rounds each strong hand only, perform a mandatory reload and engage target array with 2 rounds each weak hand only." Reason: Once you go from freestyle to strong hand only, it is assumed for the remainder of the stage that your “other” hand is disabled, so you can’t later use it for a “weak hand only” requirement.

In the proposed rules, if strong hand only or weak hand only is required, it can apply only to the last shots required in the COF, and to no more than 6 shots using that handicap.

GUEST COMMENTOR:
Stanley Penkala
A-44158

Geek Lite - The Movie

This video is probably of personal interest to perhaps 12 people in the world.

But is serves as an example of the way that IPSC competition can be enjoyed by shooters of all levels of experience and talent, with the possible exception of "Good Shooters".

Nobody in this movie is particularly good, but everybody in this movie was having a good time. Witness the surprising end of The Incredible Kevin, who chose to end the stage by dumping all 11 rounds from his Single-Stack 1911 at "the two difficult far targets hidden in the corner". To his joy, he managed to get four hits on one target, and five on the other.

And no, we didn't make him tape the targets.

It's also a good vehicle for WhiteFish to show off his new STI 4.5" Open Gun. He got a miss on one of "the two difficult far targets hidden in the corner", but when interviewed (?) after the stage, he acknowledged that the misses were not due to 'the previous owner left a couple of misses in the gun', but due to his own desire to wish the shots into the brown parts. He bought it, he owns it, in the truest sense.

This video, and two other videos from this match are (as usual) available from Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery ... although the other two videos are 12mb downloads, this one is 15mb to preserve the visual quality and to give full justice to the music.

The YouTube version is available now, here:



The neat part about this movie is you can watch it and imagine how you would have shot it better, faster, smarter ...

Geek Lite - CCS Points March, 2007 Points Match at TCGC

After a fortnight of serious blogging about USPSA rules and the Oregon Senate's attempt to shut down Shooting Ranges state-wide, it's a pure pleasure to relax and enjoy describing a simple local Points Match.

I use the term "Points Match" from time to time. It simply defines a club match in which the match-points accumulated can be used to award the best shooters with an invitation to attend next year's USPSA Nationals without having to pay the Premium Price. Every club is awarded a certain number of 'slots' (match entry at the lowest possible fee) to the USPSA Nationals. In the Columbia Cascade Section, Match Points earned at one match per month determines which competitors are offered this premium entry. It's not really a big deal, except it gives us a reason to try extra hard to shoot well, once a month. Points Match are typically attended by more than the usual number of competitors. I'm not sure why, because here in Oregon we're an insular bunch and sometimes 'slots' are returned un-used for redistribution to sections which have more people able to invest the time and money to travel to a National Match.

The Tri-County Gun Club has experienced a change in leadership this year. Last Year's Club Representatives have moved on, and Norm The Ungrateful and Potty-Mouth Shaun have taken over the helm at this club for the 2007 Competition year.

I've lambasted both co-Match Directors in their first two matches because of flaws in their stage designs. They didn't like it, and I don't blame them a bit. I understand that match administration is a difficult and onerous task, and it would be a lot more fun for the people who contribute their time and effort to just ... let them put on a match, for goodness sakes!

But we need to be aware of the way in which stage designs are dictated by the USPSA Rule Book, so sometimes I'm less forgiving in my criticism than a friendly person ought to be.

After Norm and Shaun both responded as gentlemen in January and February matches (their respective turns as MD), they combined their efforts this month as co-MDs and produced a superlative match. Norm is recently returned from a Florida match, and brought with him stage designs from that experience.

There is much to be said in favor of cross-polination of stage design theory between sections, and this match benefitted from Norm's experience. At least two of the Major Stages were either influenced or direct steals from that match, and we who competed today at TCGC are grateful for the innovative designs which tested our skills.

Stage 5: "In The Round" was based on a Florida Stage. The original stage featured 30 targets requiring one hit per target. Norm didn't have enough target stands to present the original design, so he used 15 targets and scored the best two hits.

Stage 6: "Florida Sunshine" featured a lot of vision barriers, a hefty handful of 8 Pepper Poppers, two fast swingers initiated by stepping on a 'foot trap' box, and both near far static IPSC targets.

Stage 6 offered a neat half-dozen ways to shoot it; stage 5 could be shot at least 60 different ways, although our squad found that we could shoot the first four or five targets from positions near the starting position, then (for hi-cap magazines) shoot all the rest of the targets from a fortuitous 'sweet spot.

Our squad discovered the hard way that there were hidden 180 traps in Stage 5. If you lost track of the 180, you earned a trip to Dairy Queen ("DQ") by engaging targets just a little bit past the 180 line. We lost two squad members in five minutes this way.

One of the DQ's just packed up his gear and went home. The other stayed for the whole match and helped RO, score and tape. I have no criticisms to offer for either reaction. I've DQ'd three times and never managed to stick around for the end of the match. Some people just have a lot more character than I do. I recognize it, I applaude it, but I haven't yet managed to emulate it.

We lost those two squad members (one way or the other) on the second stage of the day, Stage 5, and the rest of the match went without serious incident.


Geek Lite incidents of the day:

• WhiteFish brought his new STI Open Gun to the match. I have spent the past ten years trying to talk him into using an STI in favor of his (old) Para Open Gun, or his (recent) Glock Open gun, and he finally caved in and got a decent STI shorty a couple of months ago. The trigger had way too much slack, as the previous owner swapped triggers as a favor but failed to set it up in the best way. Fish got Major Nyne gunsmith Rob S. to walk him through an adjustment, and the gun ran clean and smooth all day. The only drawback is that the .38 Super Comp is Major Obnoxious. I RO'd him for two stages, and had to stay well behind him to preserve the fillings in my teeth. As a consequence, he bought three pounds of VV 3N37 powder from Bobby the Vendor after the match, in support of his declared intent to be even more obnoxious to Range Officers in future matches. I tried to steel his new powder and throw it away, but he was too quick for me and easily retrieved it from the back of my truck.
• Harold the Barbarian is back! Harold has been a near-charter member of The Usual Suspects Squad, but due to a new job and family pressures hasn't been able to go to IPSC matches for the past six months. His job has settled down enough that he could come play with us today, and he was able to enjoy the unseasonably balmy Winter-In-Oregon weather. He's a little rusty, but he had a couple of very good stages and added some continuity to the squad mix and a lot of levity to our day.
• ah, this post is already too long. You don't want to hear about the minutiea of a local match, and I don't want to bore you with it. It's enough to say that the sun was shining, the rain was off-and-on but easy to ignore, the stages were challenging and fun (thank you Norm and Shaun!), and we all learned a few things about shooting challenging stages ... which we'll forget before the next match because we're old and because we're less concerned about being 'competitive' than we are about having a good day at the range.

One thing deserves to be mentioned. During the walk-through, The Hobo Brasser took two minutes to discuss Oregon's SB 1012 and the way it has been designed to impose such administrative and financial burdons on Shooting Ranges in Oregon that it would be impossible for them to continue ... raised such an outcry among the 67 registered competitors that MD Norm was hard pressed to get us all back to the original focus of shooting the match.

NOTE: Photos (and, evenually, Videos) of this match are available here.

New Blogger: A Schadenfreude Opportunity

Google's "Blogspot" software has been beta-testing a "New Blogger" software version for the last few months. They have encouraged all participants in their free service (for which I have been grateful during the last 28 months of my participation) to convert their blogs to "The New Blogger" as soon as they, in their opinion, have moved past the Beta-Testing phase.

Reports from other bloggers (eg: LawDog) have been less than reassuring. I have been reluctant to convert to The New Blogger.

When I attempted to sign on today, I found that it was absolutely and totally imposible to access my account without accepting The New Blogger software.

After spending over an hour in attempts to access my account in the manner in which I originally signed on to use, I have reluctantly accepted their new terms of service. I have far too much content invested in this blog to throw it all away without at least making an effort to continue under the new Terms of Service.

I note that the software vendor never announced that acceptance of the new software version would become mandatory. If the consequences of this transition includes interruption of service (noted by early converts) or the less frequent posting from this source, I apologize ahead of time.

When you use a free service, one which has provided adequate support to date, it is not advisable to arbitrarily and unilaterally drop it ... even though this describes the manner in which the provider has chosen to implement the change.

If it is not immediately apparent to the casual reader that I am in a state of High Dudgeon in response, please don't be shy.

I don't like being forced to take a course of action which I would not have chosen in any less draconic scenario.

The worst part of it is, I don't even know if this post will be published.

Well, maybe it will be all right. Maybe there won't be an interruption of service. Maybe ... as likely as it now seems to me ... the new features will ever work; first time every time.

I don't expect it, but it could happen. I suppose. Although, if the software upgrade is really as good as they think it was, it would have remained an "Opt In" version and would sell itself because those who tried it really liked it. As opposed to the reports which we have received so far.

IF this note actually posts, I will be trying the 'options' which Blogger has touted so relentlessly.

Please be patient. If this stuff doesn't kill me several times in the coming weeks, I will be pleasantly surprised. And I'll say so, here.

Otherwise ... well, you can indulge in your own personal Schadenfreude as you watch me twist and turn in the wind.

Range Nazi -- Oregon SB1012

The Oregon Senate is considering a new bill (SB 1012) which will regulate the way in which shooting ranges are organized, administered and regulated.

(Pay special attention to that last word -- 'regulated'. It's not in the bill as a word, but it's all over the intent of the bill.)

You can read the contents of the bill here. Note that it's not a new law, it actually amends (changes, adds) four existing laws. The changes are ... draconian.

Here is the main body of the ammendments:

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to shooting ranges, creating new provisions; and amending ORS 166.171, 166.172, 166.180 and 467.131.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1.

1. As used in this section, "shooting range" means a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed, built or used for the purpose of targets shooting.
2. The Department of State Police shall establish by rule safety procedures for shooting ranges. The rules shall include policies and procedures for the certification of rangemasters.
3. Shooting ranges should shall:

• (a) Control gunfire so that bullets or other projectiles do not cross the plane of the shooting range boundary and do not enter property adjacent to the shooting range, absent consent by the owner or occupant of the adjacent property;
• (b) Ensure that gates and doors are secured sufficiently to prevent unauthorized entry onto the premises, and
• (c) Ensure that local noise ordances are observed.

4. All shooting ranges shall employ a rangemaster, who shall be certified by the department and shall be physically present at the shooting range at any time that firearms or other weapons are being discharged. The rangemaster shall insure that:

• (a) Weapon safety rules are prominently posted and are followed by all members and visitors on the premises of the shooting range.
• (b) All visitors to the shooting range provide identification and that their names are recorded in a log.
• (c) Alcoholic beverages are not consumed or posssessed by anyone on the premises; and
• (d) All firarms or other weapons that are brought onto the premises are recorded in a log book. The rangemaster shall cause to be recorded at least the following information:
• (A) The make and model of the weapon;
• (B) The caliber of the weapon;
• (C) The name and address of the person bringing the weapon onto the premises; and
• (D) The date and time that the weapon is brought onto the premises.

(There are other rules and amendments in this bill, but for the sake of brevity -- and because they aren't as egregious as the provisions already presented -- I'll ignore them for now. The above provisions are, except for minor typgraphical and formatting errors, a reasonable representation of this section of the bill.)

I have a few objections to the proposed provisions.

First: Non-differention of Public vs Private Range
This is the least important of my objections, except that it doesn't establish funding (from State budget) for a rangemaster for any 'Public' ranges. As far as I know, there are no 'Public' (ie ... owned and administered by state, county or local authority) ranges in the state of Oregon. However, there are two types of 'Private' ranges:

1. Ranges owned and operated by private citizens who charge a fee for single-usage.
2. Ranges owned and operated by 'clubs', which restrict admission to club members (who have paid an annual fee for membership), invited individual guests, and 'club guests' who are authorized entry and usage by virtue of entering a competition and paying a match fee, or spectators who pay a fee for the privilege of observing a competition or demonstration.

The first type is a for-profit private venture.
The second type is a non-profit (usually) venture which applies fees toward administrative, range-improvement and other operational expenses.

Having no 'Public' ranges, Oregon (as represented by its legislature) obviously can find no reason why it should not impose expenses on the operators of shooting ranges. I only mention this because it seems so disengenuous.

I admit, if Oregon did support and operate Public Ranges I would still complain because the cost of supporting a 'rangemaster' would impose a finance burden on the state budget.


Second: Financial burden on range owners/administrators

I know of no "club" range in the state which maintains either a daily or permanent employee, although at least one other range provides volunteer 'staff' in the form of people who patrol the range from time to time, usually on the weekends when formal activities (matches) may be expected to be scheduled.

Thus, the requirement to have a permanent employee available to act as 'rangemaster' (as defined by the bill) imposes a significant financial burden on every range ... which would probably be sufficiently expensive to discourage most ranges from attempting to continue operation.

This is a blatant attempt to discourage the continued operation of 'Private' club ranges by imposition of excessive expenses attendant upon daily range operation.

Third: De Facto Registration

Read again Section 1, subsection 4 (d).
Subsections 4(a) through 4(c) are just camouflage ... although according to subsection 4(c), if you intend to meet friends after the match and have a bottle of wine in your vehicle, you are in violation of that rule.

4(d) requrires the rangemaster to record personal and private information about the people who visit the range, including a list of firearms in their posession -- make, model and serial number caliber.

This is a matter of firearms registration.

There is no enforcement clause included in the PRESENT form of the bill, which makes me suspicious . Any time you have a rule without an enforcement clause, you can bet that if this one somehow passes the smell test, the next step will to be imposition of a penalty for failure to follow instructions.

After registration comes confiscation.

Trust me. We see the camel's nose under the tent. As soon as some subterfuge is used to require a PUBLIC record of possession of a firearm at any point in time, another rule will be imposed to enforce the rule.

Next comes a rule to require maintenance ... the records must be maintained for x number of years.

After that, reporting to a supposedly benevolent State agency (the Department of State Police has already been mentioned .. any bets that the State Police will become the agency tasked with receiving and maintaining these records?)

At this point, Rule of Law is no longer necessary. It's only an administrative step to providing this information to other agencies ... which may be allowed, encouraged or even required.

Note that current law prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Taxes, Firearms and Explosives from retaining records of firearm sales transactions vetted through their agency for the sole purposes of determining that the potential purchaser of a firarm is not legally prohibited from said ownership.

There is currently no prohibition on BATFE acquisition and retention ... and use ... of firearms ownership records received from state agencies 'for other purposes', said records having been acquired according to local, county or state law.

And BATFE can do anything they want with those records.

Including breaking into your home in the dark of night to terrorize your family, arrest you, and confiscate your property.

All because you went to the range to enjoy a peaceful, perfectly legal day shooting your personally owned firearm of choice.

Yeah.

What else is in this bill?

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill remove from current law, exceptions to firearms regulations when the firearms owner is "A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting".

These changes allow either a city or a county to "... adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the dischange of firearms ..." within their boundaries. In other words, it allows both county and municipal governments to outlaw shooting ranges, unilaterally and arbitrarily. Oh sure, the gun club or shooting range is still allowed to function and to invite the public or private members; but visitors just can't shoot on the shooting range.

Section 4 amends the opening clause of ORS 166.180 to read:

"Any person who, as a result of failure to use ordinary care under the circumstances, wounds another person or damages another's property with a bullet of shot from any firearm ... shall be punished by imprisonment ... or by a fine ... or both."

The bold part ("or damages another's property") would be added to the existing law by this proposed bill.

Granted, it is generally considered to be a very bad thing to fire a round which may leave the premises of a shooting range. Competition rules, range rules, general safety rules, construction of berms and barriers and safety areas ... all of these steps are taken by shooting ranges and gun clubs to minimize the danger of a round leaving the range.

Supposing the unthinkable happens and a round leaves the range, what happens? Previously, if another person is injured the shooter is subject to imprisonment and/or fine. However, under the provision added by this bill the shooter is subject to same penalties for mere property damage. The term "damage", by the way, is not defined. If a round strikes a brick wall and chips a brick, is that punishable? If it strikes a tree and chips off some bark, is that punishable? If it lands in a fresh-mown lawn and digs a furrow or divot, is that punishable?

Why is property damage resulting from a round leaving a shooting range not recoverable through the civil courts, the same as property damage resulting from your neighbor's kid hitting a hardball through your living room picture window? Is the damage more egregious because it was caused by an Evil Firearm? I suspect so.

Section 5 of this bill deals with "noise polution". While this seems the mildest provision of the entire bill, this is the part which is most likely to put your local shooting range out of business.

Let's look at what it says:

ORS467.131 exempts shooting ranges (etc) from "... civil or criminal liability based upon an allegation of noise or noise pollution so long as ...

(2) The owner, operator or lessee [complied] is in compliance with any applicable noise control law or ordinance [existing at the time that construction of the shooting range began or no noise control law or ordinance was then existing]; [and]

There are two more clauses to look at, but let's evaluate the changes in this clause.

The formatting conventions are in the original bill and faithfully reproduced here. Text which is in [italics] was in the original law and is being removed by this bill. Text which is shown in bold is new text to be added to or inserted into the existing law, as shown.

The result of the changes to the existing law is that shooting ranges were originally only required to be in compliance with the noise control laws or ordinances which existed when the range was built. Ranges enjoyed the protection of 'grandfather' when, for example, developers extended new home construction until it encroached on the area immediately adjacent to a pre-existing shooting range. Keep that thought in mind as you read on.

Also in Section 5:

(3) The allegation results from activity on the shooting range between the hours of 7am and [10] 7 pm or conducted for law enforcement training purposes[.] ; and
(4) The allegation does not result from activity on the shooting range on Christmas or Thanksgiving.

Looking back at the format ruiles, we see that this changes the legitimate hours of operation of a shooting range from 7am to 10pm TO 7am to 7pm. It also prohibits (essentially) the use of a shooting range on Christmas and Thanksgiving. (Well, you can be there, you can even shoot ... but if your new neighbors complain, you are subject to whatever penalties are defined in your friendly local noise ordinance.)


What's this all about?
When you ask yourself who would want these changes made, and who would have the political pull to get the new bill onto the senate floor, you end up asking who would best be served by removing shooting ranges. Note these don't control guns directly (although, if enacted, they would have a chilling effect on private firearms ownership).

The result of Sections 2 through 5 are that neighbors of shooting ranges are provided with weapons with which to nit-pick shooting ranges to death. A new gated community can enact whatever local ordinances it wants, and impose its will on its neighbors. Previously, shooting ranges in Oregon were protected by the Grandfather clause; that goes away immediately if this bill is voted into law.

Who would benefit from this?

Land developers. For years, Oregon gun clubs have been beset by nuisance complaints and lawsuits from developers who want to build houses near or adjacent to pre-existing shooting ranges, but the owners or lessees of the shooting ranges (rather, their lawyers) could point to existing laws which remove noise ordinances and incidental property damage from the tool-box availble to the developers.

The clauses being removed from existing law are EXACTLY the laws which protect the existance of shooting ranges, and as such are the REAL reason why this bill has been introduced.

Section 1 is a Red Herring. We are intended to look at that huge mass of obviously unacceptable NEW laws, with the hopes that we will overlook the 'minor, administrative' changes to the OLD laws. Sure, you're going to write to your state senator and talk about how Section 1 is terrible and serves no purpose. They may listen to you and vote to change the bill by removal of Section 1.

As bad as it is, the mere removal of Section 1 will not serve to protect shooting ranges from crippling lawsuits and loss of patronage. If you go to a shooting range and are sued by their neighbors because your kid wants to try his or her new noisy rifle on Christmas Day, you are probably not going back to that shooting range again (even though these laws apply to ALL shooting ranges, public and private, in Oregon).

This entire bill is a threat to the future existance of A Place To Shoot in Oregon, and I don't mean just the private indoor shooting range in North Portland but every place which has been designed, constructed and provide as a place where you can safely and legally take your private firearms for the purpose of shooting them.

If this bill passes, you might as well sell your reloading press because you won't be using a lot of ammunition any more.

Write Your Legislator:
I'm writing my state senator to complain about the low-down, underhanded way my representatives are trying to drive shooting ranges out of business (and sneak records of my private firearms ownership to the gun-grabbers.)

If you're an Oregon resident, I encourage you to write your State Senator as well. It wouldn't hurt to write your State Representative to the House, as well. If we don't stop this nasty thing at the Senate level, we'll have to rely only on our Congressmen to protect our rights.

But emails are often ignored. If you really want to be noticed, write a letter and send it by snail-mail. This is MUCH more effective and more likely to generate a reply.

If you don't know the name of your Oregon legislator (State Senate or House), you can go here to look him up. enter your street address and zip, it will return the names of both state and federal representatives.

Then, using that information, you can go here to get full contact information for representatives

Here you can get a PDF with mailing labels for all Oregon State Senators (and there's no reason why you should only write your own State Senator to register your disapproval), or you can get individual state senator information here.

One more thing:
When you write your representitive ... be nice. They may not be aware that this is a High-Profile issue yet. No need to beat them up when they haven't even had a chance to think about it.

You can beat them up later, in the elections, if they ignore your perfectly reasonable protest.

Thanks to SWMBO, and Peter, for bringing this issue to my attention. Thanks also to Mac who corrected some errors and out-of-date misinformation, and who is working to combat this new attack on the Shooting Sports.

UPDATE: Match 17, 2007
REMOVED text of my letter to my representative
REMOVED erroneous description of Oregon range employees
ADD information on contacting your State of Oregon representative, including non-email address
ADD comments about other, less obvious provisions of this bill.

AS OF THIS DATE, here are a list of firearms-rights and shooting sports websites which do NOT have any information on this bill:
Oregon Association of Shooting Ranges
Oregon State Shooting Association
Citizens Comittee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Second Amendment Foundation
GUNLAWS.COM (Oregon State Firearms Information)
National Rifle Association
NRA Institute for Legislative Action
... anybody else

UPDATE: March 21, 2007
The Shooting Wire has picked up this bill. See here.

UPDATE: March 22, 2007
* In Section 1, Item 3: Replaced the word should with 'shall'. This corrects a typo in the original draft of this article, it is not verbiage found in the bill, and the strike-through has been hi-lited in an effort to emphasize this point.

* Added sub-item designations, such as (a) and (A), to conform with the item designations found in the original bill text.

* Replaced the phrase "Ipsco Facto" with "De Facto" in a paragraph heading, for correct usage.

* Corrected a few unfortunate spelling errors in the commentary.