Actually, it's 1am. I've managed to load 176 rounds ... and the last ten were like pulling teeth
I doubt that this is enough for the match, but if I run out of ammunition I'll just take pictures and videos of the other shooters anyway. The point of the game is that it's a chance to get out of doors, a little light exercise, get sunburned and be humiliated by your friends.
And ... the good folks at Dillon will be receiving a phone call from me next week. This just cannot go on. For the money, the press is suppose to work a lot better than it does now.
The reasonable suggestion, that I send it in for a rebuild?
Did that two years ago. It worked well for 3 months.
But I'm not going to let any of this spoil my weekend. I've check the pistol, ran a solvent rag thru it (which I did when I last used it) and did a little oiling. The batteries on the C-more are up and I have a spare in the bag. There's some ice in the freezer and water bottles in the refrigerator, ready to go in the cooler at 7:30 am.
A good (short) nights sleep, and then a pleasant hour drive to the beautiful Dundee Hills.
Can't way to see what Evil Bill has in store for us this time!
See you on the range.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Dillon Blues
I was very pleased last Wednesday when my order from Dillon arrived.
Mikey D. did right by me. I got the new Primer Cam, of course. The first thing I did when I ripped the package open was to measure the elevation of the old cam and the new one. The new cam stands 0.066" higher than the old one. Visually, they looked the same. But that shiny 'scuff' on the face of the old cam represents enough worn-off metal (I'm thinking) to account for its inability to rotate the primer disk quite far enough to index with the primer punch.
Dillon also sent me a new primer arm, and the return spring, and a "index arm bowed washer". Not to mention two new primer disks: one for small primers, one for large primers.
Since I had already replaced the primer arm, and the return spring, I didn't both replacing them. The "bowed washer" was still bowed (I knew from the inspection I made of parts the last time I tore down the primer assembly; last weekend -- twice.) And as for primer disks, they're good stainless steel and harder than rocks. No need to replace THAT.
So I just replaced the Cam on Wednesday night, poured a tall glass of ice water (it's 85 degrees out in the corner of the garage when the loading bench is), and settled in to make some .38 Super ammunition.
Yes, that primer cam made a difference. But not enough. I would get maybe one 'clean' primer feed out of 6 or 7, and the rest of the time I would have to fiddle with the darned thing. Sometimes the disk wouldn't rotate enough, sometimes it rotated a little too far. You can't tell what the problem is until you pull the case out and peer down into the guts of the thing.
Sometimes, it didn't seem to even try to bring up a new primer.
That kept me off the streets for a couple of hours Wednesday. I had loaded about 40 rounds of ammunition before I got frustrated, then sleepy. So I turned out the lights and called it a night.
Now it's Friday Night, 9pm, and I should be having a late snack and heading to bed sure that 200 rounds should be enough to get through the Dundee match tomorrow.
Trouble is, I've got about 50 rounds loaded. Not 200.
Finally I had a major jam, so I had to dismount the primer assembly to see what was wrong. Turned out one of the primers had turned coming out of the primer tube, and jammed the disk.
The new plan is to disassemble the primer assembly, thoroughly clean EVERYTHING, and then replace all of the old moving parts with the new moving parts.
Surprisingly, I had the whole thing cleaned, reassembled, and mounted on the Dillon XL650 in about 25 minutes. It shouldn't have taken me that long, but I had to sit a spell and admire the shine from my (almost) completely rebuilt gizmo.
Refilling the tube with another 100 primers, I started to work, whistling a tune from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs".
I didn't get past the first verse before the music changed, from "Hi Ho!" to "Night on Bald Mountain". (You'll remember that one, of course, from "Fantasia". It comes right after "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".)
I didn't have problems with the primer indexing a little short, or a little long. They weren't indexing AT ALL.
Hard as it is to watch the primer disk while my fat fingers are trying to load, but I finally realized that the primer disk was rotating just fine, and the primer arm was returning properly ... but it was dragging the disk backwards with it. Instead of the disk staying in place while the arm returned to pick up the next primer, it reversed the direction of the disk and dragged the new primer back to align the old (now empty) hole in the primer disk.
Hmmmmm. This calls for a serious re-think.
Also for a talk with the coach. I poured myself a short McNaughton's and phoned SWMBO. She was having a not particularly good day either, so we sat for a while and talked each other back to a more ... uh ... cheerful mood.
The McNaughton's didn't hurt, either.
But now SWMBO has gone back to "There's Nothing On Television" land, and the McNaughtons is naught but a smokey memory.
And I'm sitting here writing to faceless readers who will turn into giggling spectators when I try to shoot a 150+ round match tomorrow with about 100 rounds.
Don't know right now what I'm going to do. I can't see why the disk should NOT be dragged back from the arm, which means I'm going to have to figure out what this marvel of modern machinery was originally designed to do to prevent reverse rotation.
The best I've done so far has been to irritate the Gods of Alliteration, which is fun but not helpful.
No, don't ask me if I've cleaned the Open gun in preparation for the match. That was suppose to happen with the McNaughton's moment.
Stay tuned. The next article will either be a Reloader's Lament (later tonite), or a long and embarrassing story about the Saturday Match Which Never Were.
Why?
Because The Hobo Brasser has promised to loan me enough ammunition to finish the match. And I've assured him that "the situation is well in hand".
I hate it when he laughs. He sounds so ... so ... so Irish!
Mikey D. did right by me. I got the new Primer Cam, of course. The first thing I did when I ripped the package open was to measure the elevation of the old cam and the new one. The new cam stands 0.066" higher than the old one. Visually, they looked the same. But that shiny 'scuff' on the face of the old cam represents enough worn-off metal (I'm thinking) to account for its inability to rotate the primer disk quite far enough to index with the primer punch.
Dillon also sent me a new primer arm, and the return spring, and a "index arm bowed washer". Not to mention two new primer disks: one for small primers, one for large primers.
Since I had already replaced the primer arm, and the return spring, I didn't both replacing them. The "bowed washer" was still bowed (I knew from the inspection I made of parts the last time I tore down the primer assembly; last weekend -- twice.) And as for primer disks, they're good stainless steel and harder than rocks. No need to replace THAT.
So I just replaced the Cam on Wednesday night, poured a tall glass of ice water (it's 85 degrees out in the corner of the garage when the loading bench is), and settled in to make some .38 Super ammunition.
Yes, that primer cam made a difference. But not enough. I would get maybe one 'clean' primer feed out of 6 or 7, and the rest of the time I would have to fiddle with the darned thing. Sometimes the disk wouldn't rotate enough, sometimes it rotated a little too far. You can't tell what the problem is until you pull the case out and peer down into the guts of the thing.
Sometimes, it didn't seem to even try to bring up a new primer.
That kept me off the streets for a couple of hours Wednesday. I had loaded about 40 rounds of ammunition before I got frustrated, then sleepy. So I turned out the lights and called it a night.
Now it's Friday Night, 9pm, and I should be having a late snack and heading to bed sure that 200 rounds should be enough to get through the Dundee match tomorrow.
Trouble is, I've got about 50 rounds loaded. Not 200.
Finally I had a major jam, so I had to dismount the primer assembly to see what was wrong. Turned out one of the primers had turned coming out of the primer tube, and jammed the disk.
The new plan is to disassemble the primer assembly, thoroughly clean EVERYTHING, and then replace all of the old moving parts with the new moving parts.
Surprisingly, I had the whole thing cleaned, reassembled, and mounted on the Dillon XL650 in about 25 minutes. It shouldn't have taken me that long, but I had to sit a spell and admire the shine from my (almost) completely rebuilt gizmo.
Refilling the tube with another 100 primers, I started to work, whistling a tune from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs".
I didn't get past the first verse before the music changed, from "Hi Ho!" to "Night on Bald Mountain". (You'll remember that one, of course, from "Fantasia". It comes right after "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".)
I didn't have problems with the primer indexing a little short, or a little long. They weren't indexing AT ALL.
Hard as it is to watch the primer disk while my fat fingers are trying to load, but I finally realized that the primer disk was rotating just fine, and the primer arm was returning properly ... but it was dragging the disk backwards with it. Instead of the disk staying in place while the arm returned to pick up the next primer, it reversed the direction of the disk and dragged the new primer back to align the old (now empty) hole in the primer disk.
Hmmmmm. This calls for a serious re-think.
Also for a talk with the coach. I poured myself a short McNaughton's and phoned SWMBO. She was having a not particularly good day either, so we sat for a while and talked each other back to a more ... uh ... cheerful mood.
The McNaughton's didn't hurt, either.
But now SWMBO has gone back to "There's Nothing On Television" land, and the McNaughtons is naught but a smokey memory.
And I'm sitting here writing to faceless readers who will turn into giggling spectators when I try to shoot a 150+ round match tomorrow with about 100 rounds.
Don't know right now what I'm going to do. I can't see why the disk should NOT be dragged back from the arm, which means I'm going to have to figure out what this marvel of modern machinery was originally designed to do to prevent reverse rotation.
The best I've done so far has been to irritate the Gods of Alliteration, which is fun but not helpful.
No, don't ask me if I've cleaned the Open gun in preparation for the match. That was suppose to happen with the McNaughton's moment.
Stay tuned. The next article will either be a Reloader's Lament (later tonite), or a long and embarrassing story about the Saturday Match Which Never Were.
Why?
Because The Hobo Brasser has promised to loan me enough ammunition to finish the match. And I've assured him that "the situation is well in hand".
I hate it when he laughs. He sounds so ... so ... so Irish!
Monday, July 19, 2010
XL650 - Still Whining, After All These Years
SWMBO keeps telling me that we should just buy a new Loading Press ("We can use the same accessories, right?") and every male friend keeps telling me to "Man Up!"
But no, I'm a Geek and I will continue to do things My Way, regardless of the very good advice provided from Friends and Family.
HOWEVER: Taunted by the possibility that Evil Bill & Company will manage to establish a Club Match at the recently developer-challenged Dundee Gun Club, I have decided to try ... really, REALLY hard, to get enough ammunition loaded for the .38 Super Open Gun that I can "Match Up" before the next anticipated match on Saturday, July 24, 2010. According to the Columbia Cascade Section calendar, there WILL be a match this weekend.
And I want to be there!
Even Though I'm a Geek, the comes a point when I quit whining and I start doing whatever is necessary to get me to a match. That's the situation now. It has been a long time since I competed (a couple of months, at most) and very much longer since I competed in Open Division (October, 2009 .... nine months!)
Accordingly, I have made an effort during the past two weeks to fix the problems with my Dillon XL650, with the goal of loading ammunition at a more productive rate that one round per day ... which actually does not exaggerate my reloading rate during this "Blue Period".
The problem has been that the primer disk does NOT index correctly. That is to say, the primer disk does not line up with the primer punch, so when I try to down-stroke the handle, the primer will not be seated in the case. If you need more description of the technical problem, you don't have a Dillon XL650 and I will need approximately 3,000 more words to describe the problem.
Bummer.
Assume that it's a technical problem, and you really do NOT want to hear the details. Okay? I'm doing you a favor here.
Last week I decided to be pro-active, so I phoned Dillon Precision at their "order parts from the catalog" phone number of 1-800-762-3845. (I should have called them at the "I have a technical question" phone number of 1-800-223-4570 .)
I told the answering operator that I had a problem with my 650. The primer disc wasn't indexing properly and I thought I needed a new Primer Cam.
The guy I talked to doubted that I need the primer cam (page 47,part # 25) .. instead, he suggested that I needed the primer lever.
It's Complicated:
(If you want the gory details of the difference between the primer cam and the primer lever, call me. The point is, the primer CAM ([same link]Page # 48, item # 25, Part # 13630) is a standard attachment which pushes the primer LEVER [same link] Page # xx, item # xx, Part # 13909) until the primer DISC (Page # 53, item 15s, part # 134331) aligns with the primer PUNCH and the primer pocket of the cartridge which is aligned by movement of the base-plate (Page 52, Item 6, Part # [caliber specific]).
The problem is clearly discussed on page 42 of the manual under Problem Descriptions "E" and "F":
In this instance, the machine was delivered in December of 1994, and it has been used to reload over 250,000 rounds of ammunition. Clearly, the possibility of excessive wear on the parts must be included in evaluating the problem.
The Story:
Last Wednesday I phoned Dillon Precision and asked them to send me a Primer cam, because the Primer Disc was not indexing fully. The guy on the phones chortled and said "
I don't think you need that", and instead encouraged me to accept the Primer Lever.
Which I did, because he was the professional and I'm just a dumb customer who has let my Dillon XL650 sit for six months because I was pissed off at the stupid machinery.
I even asked for (and paid $13.00) for the "Second Day Delivery", because I wanted it in time to spend my weekend installing, testing and reloading.
The Weekend:
Last weekend I got home Friday Night and found the parts from Dillon in a FEDEX package on my doorstep. I replaced the primer lever, according to the manual, but it still didn't index correctly. The primer disk would be within a very few degrees of aligning with the primer punch, but I found that it was necessary for me to push up on the underside of the primer disk and push it to the right to achieve correct alignment. In fact, it was usually too much movement, and I had to re-adjust back and forth before the primer would correctly align with the primer punch, and the primer packet of the de-capped brass.
I wasted too much time trying to make this arrangement work, and finally I just .. gave up. I was angry, and disappointed, and frustrated.
Monday Morning:
This morning I phoned Dillon and talked to a different person. I called the 'problem number' (or 'technical help') and talked to a different person. I described my problem, mentioned that the Customer Service Representative last week and told me that I needed a new Primer Lever, not a new Primer Cam.
The CSR today just laughed and said "whenever you need to replace one, you need to replace both of them. It's like when you get a hole in your socks because your shoe doesn't fit; you have to replace the socks, sure, but you need to replace the shoe too!"
He went on to say that it was a standard response to this kind of primer-disk-indexing problem; they're on warranty, so send both the primer cam and the primer lever, so you only have to deal with the problem one time.
Dillon "No Questions" Warranty:
So the guy I was talking to insisted on replacing 'the whole thing', which I understood was just the two parts -- even though I had just received and installed a new Primer Cam.
I had some questions, and the big one was that I wondered when the parts would get here? I wanted to install the parts and load some ammunition before the weekend. The delivery was schedules by USPS, and I wasn't confident that this would fit my schedule.
"You know" I said; "I would really like to get the new parts in the next couple of days so I don't have to leave my reloading until the last minute on Friday. How about you make that "Second Day Delivery" via UPS?"
The CSR said: "Sure, but I'll have to charge you for the delivery"/
I told him "I paid for the 2nd Day Delivery last week, because I wanted to have the weekend to work on it. It didn't work out for me, but I didn't mind paying for the fast delivery then, and I don't mind paying for it now. Just get the parts to me in 2 days, and I don't mind paying another $13 to get the parts that I need, when I need them."
The CSR thought about that for about seconds, and replied: "You know, you paid extra for fast delivery last week, and we didn't send you the parts you needed. So this week, I'll send the parts you need via '2-day delivery', and the delivery is free."
I was a little surprised at this offer, but not so surprised that I couldn't accept the generous offer in about 1.01 seconds.
The CSR went on to say: "Okay, we'll send you the primer cam and primer lever, on warranty, and get them to you via 2-day deliver. My name is Mike, and if there are any more problems you let us know. Okay?"
I thanked the CSR and hung up, confident that this time the very expensive Dillon XL-650 would work for me as well as it did when it was brand new.
After all, I had the owner's word on it.
Mike.
Mike ... Dillon.
How many manufacturers have the CEO manning the CSR phone lines on Monday Mornings?
Well, one. One that I know of.
I'll keep you advised.
But no, I'm a Geek and I will continue to do things My Way, regardless of the very good advice provided from Friends and Family.
HOWEVER: Taunted by the possibility that Evil Bill & Company will manage to establish a Club Match at the recently developer-challenged Dundee Gun Club, I have decided to try ... really, REALLY hard, to get enough ammunition loaded for the .38 Super Open Gun that I can "Match Up" before the next anticipated match on Saturday, July 24, 2010. According to the Columbia Cascade Section calendar, there WILL be a match this weekend.
And I want to be there!
Even Though I'm a Geek, the comes a point when I quit whining and I start doing whatever is necessary to get me to a match. That's the situation now. It has been a long time since I competed (a couple of months, at most) and very much longer since I competed in Open Division (October, 2009 .... nine months!)
Accordingly, I have made an effort during the past two weeks to fix the problems with my Dillon XL650, with the goal of loading ammunition at a more productive rate that one round per day ... which actually does not exaggerate my reloading rate during this "Blue Period".
The problem has been that the primer disk does NOT index correctly. That is to say, the primer disk does not line up with the primer punch, so when I try to down-stroke the handle, the primer will not be seated in the case. If you need more description of the technical problem, you don't have a Dillon XL650 and I will need approximately 3,000 more words to describe the problem.
Bummer.
Assume that it's a technical problem, and you really do NOT want to hear the details. Okay? I'm doing you a favor here.
Last week I decided to be pro-active, so I phoned Dillon Precision at their "order parts from the catalog" phone number of 1-800-762-3845. (I should have called them at the "I have a technical question" phone number of 1-800-223-4570 .)
I told the answering operator that I had a problem with my 650. The primer disc wasn't indexing properly and I thought I needed a new Primer Cam.
The guy I talked to doubted that I need the primer cam (page 47,part # 25) .. instead, he suggested that I needed the primer lever.
It's Complicated:
(If you want the gory details of the difference between the primer cam and the primer lever, call me. The point is, the primer CAM ([same link]Page # 48, item # 25, Part # 13630) is a standard attachment which pushes the primer LEVER [same link] Page # xx, item # xx, Part # 13909) until the primer DISC (Page # 53, item 15s, part # 134331) aligns with the primer PUNCH and the primer pocket of the cartridge which is aligned by movement of the base-plate (Page 52, Item 6, Part # [caliber specific]).
The problem is clearly discussed on page 42 of the manual under Problem Descriptions "E" and "F":
E. Rotary primer disc not indexing/jammed.
1. Check indexing lever and replace if
bent.
2. Inspect primer cam (#13670).
a. Missing.
b. Worn camming surface.
3. Powder debris on platform.
4. Stuck primer catching on shim
(#14117) and platform body.
F. Primers going in upside down or sideways.
1. Primer punch is not properly aligned
with the indexing shellplate.
a. Using old index cam (if purchased
machine prior to March 1995).
In this instance, the machine was delivered in December of 1994, and it has been used to reload over 250,000 rounds of ammunition. Clearly, the possibility of excessive wear on the parts must be included in evaluating the problem.
The Story:
Last Wednesday I phoned Dillon Precision and asked them to send me a Primer cam, because the Primer Disc was not indexing fully. The guy on the phones chortled and said "
I don't think you need that", and instead encouraged me to accept the Primer Lever.
Which I did, because he was the professional and I'm just a dumb customer who has let my Dillon XL650 sit for six months because I was pissed off at the stupid machinery.
I even asked for (and paid $13.00) for the "Second Day Delivery", because I wanted it in time to spend my weekend installing, testing and reloading.
The Weekend:
Last weekend I got home Friday Night and found the parts from Dillon in a FEDEX package on my doorstep. I replaced the primer lever, according to the manual, but it still didn't index correctly. The primer disk would be within a very few degrees of aligning with the primer punch, but I found that it was necessary for me to push up on the underside of the primer disk and push it to the right to achieve correct alignment. In fact, it was usually too much movement, and I had to re-adjust back and forth before the primer would correctly align with the primer punch, and the primer packet of the de-capped brass.
I wasted too much time trying to make this arrangement work, and finally I just .. gave up. I was angry, and disappointed, and frustrated.
Monday Morning:
This morning I phoned Dillon and talked to a different person. I called the 'problem number' (or 'technical help') and talked to a different person. I described my problem, mentioned that the Customer Service Representative last week and told me that I needed a new Primer Lever, not a new Primer Cam.
The CSR today just laughed and said "whenever you need to replace one, you need to replace both of them. It's like when you get a hole in your socks because your shoe doesn't fit; you have to replace the socks, sure, but you need to replace the shoe too!"
He went on to say that it was a standard response to this kind of primer-disk-indexing problem; they're on warranty, so send both the primer cam and the primer lever, so you only have to deal with the problem one time.
Dillon "No Questions" Warranty:
So the guy I was talking to insisted on replacing 'the whole thing', which I understood was just the two parts -- even though I had just received and installed a new Primer Cam.
I had some questions, and the big one was that I wondered when the parts would get here? I wanted to install the parts and load some ammunition before the weekend. The delivery was schedules by USPS, and I wasn't confident that this would fit my schedule.
"You know" I said; "I would really like to get the new parts in the next couple of days so I don't have to leave my reloading until the last minute on Friday. How about you make that "Second Day Delivery" via UPS?"
The CSR said: "Sure, but I'll have to charge you for the delivery"/
I told him "I paid for the 2nd Day Delivery last week, because I wanted to have the weekend to work on it. It didn't work out for me, but I didn't mind paying for the fast delivery then, and I don't mind paying for it now. Just get the parts to me in 2 days, and I don't mind paying another $13 to get the parts that I need, when I need them."
The CSR thought about that for about seconds, and replied: "You know, you paid extra for fast delivery last week, and we didn't send you the parts you needed. So this week, I'll send the parts you need via '2-day delivery', and the delivery is free."
I was a little surprised at this offer, but not so surprised that I couldn't accept the generous offer in about 1.01 seconds.
The CSR went on to say: "Okay, we'll send you the primer cam and primer lever, on warranty, and get them to you via 2-day deliver. My name is Mike, and if there are any more problems you let us know. Okay?"
I thanked the CSR and hung up, confident that this time the very expensive Dillon XL-650 would work for me as well as it did when it was brand new.
After all, I had the owner's word on it.
Mike.
Mike ... Dillon.
How many manufacturers have the CEO manning the CSR phone lines on Monday Mornings?
Well, one. One that I know of.
I'll keep you advised.
Monday, July 12, 2010
What's wrong with this picture?
On Election Day, 2008, citizens who attempted to vote at one precinct in Philadelphia were confronted by two members of the New Black Panther organization, one of who was brandishing a club and verbally intimidating voters. (See the NY Times article)
After receiving complaints from voters, the Justice Department pressed charges against the two demonstrators ... who failed to respond to the charges. At this point the Justice Department was on the fast track to win the case by default. In fact, the presiding judge ordered a default judgement against the defendents in this Voter Intimidation case.
Then Attorney General Holder's office instructed the prosecuting attorneys to drop the charges, on the basis that, based on evidence, the case should not go forward.
That is to say, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the men were intimidating voters .. despite the existence of a video made of the incident, and people were willing to testify that they felt 'intimidated.
Apparently the Obama administration, which was voted in during that election, didn't consider it significant that black people were intimidating white people at the voting booth.
Well, Black people cannot be prosecuted, in this country, for voter intimidation against white people. Only white people can be charged with, and convicted for, racial bias and hate crimes.
So what IS the Obama administration doing?
They are suing the state of Arizona over the state's SB1070, which will require Arizona police officers to check the credential of people they detain for 'other law infractions' to determine whether they are legally in the state ... and in the country.
The issue seems to be that Arizona, by enacting this law, has assumed responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws which are the province of the Federal Government.
The problem is, the Federal Government is not enforcing its own laws, and by its inaction the flood of "illegal immigrants" has proved to be a hardship to the people and state of Arizona.
On the other hand, if Arizona attempts to enforce Federal Law, they are infringing on the rights of the Federal Government. This seems to be the main complaint of the Obama Administration.
After receiving complaints from voters, the Justice Department pressed charges against the two demonstrators ... who failed to respond to the charges. At this point the Justice Department was on the fast track to win the case by default. In fact, the presiding judge ordered a default judgement against the defendents in this Voter Intimidation case.
Then Attorney General Holder's office instructed the prosecuting attorneys to drop the charges, on the basis that, based on evidence, the case should not go forward.
That is to say, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the men were intimidating voters .. despite the existence of a video made of the incident, and people were willing to testify that they felt 'intimidated.
Apparently the Obama administration, which was voted in during that election, didn't consider it significant that black people were intimidating white people at the voting booth.
Well, Black people cannot be prosecuted, in this country, for voter intimidation against white people. Only white people can be charged with, and convicted for, racial bias and hate crimes.
So what IS the Obama administration doing?
They are suing the state of Arizona over the state's SB1070, which will require Arizona police officers to check the credential of people they detain for 'other law infractions' to determine whether they are legally in the state ... and in the country.
The issue seems to be that Arizona, by enacting this law, has assumed responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws which are the province of the Federal Government.
The problem is, the Federal Government is not enforcing its own laws, and by its inaction the flood of "illegal immigrants" has proved to be a hardship to the people and state of Arizona.
On the other hand, if Arizona attempts to enforce Federal Law, they are infringing on the rights of the Federal Government. This seems to be the main complaint of the Obama Administration.
Outrage over the statute’s racial implications and debate over crime at the border have distracted attention from certain abominations the law contains. They are there, and they are numerous.
Chief among them is the statute’s own illegal entry into federal territory. Washington may be doing it badly, but controlling the borders is a federal job, not a state task. And while some state laws about immigration are fine constitutionally, this one isn’t.
...The Arizona statute says police must check the legal status of whomever they stop or detain for any offense, however minor, if they reasonably suspect illegal status. Sidestep the argument over what reasonable suspicion means and notice that the law also says the cops can’t release a suspected alien until they confirm legal status.
That could take a while if every peace officer in the state of Arizona is on the line with immigration authorities.
If you can’t release suspected illegals until you confirm their status, this means you book them. Jails that are already overcrowded will be stuffed with people stopped for minor offenses who may or may not be illegal aliens.
How are these governments going to pay for more jail space? More cops? Police chiefs and sheriffs want to know.
If law enforcement is the least bit important to you, consider this, too. Any officer or prosecutor will tell you it’s tough enough coaxing cooperation from crime victims and witnesses in communities where illegal aliens reside.
Making immigration enforcement Job One for local and state officers will deepen fear within those communities. It will create and enlarge neighborhoods where no crime is solved, no criminal punished, no law is enforceable.
Well, the Delaware Online Website's opinion page seems firmly convinced that the Arizona law is both unconstitutional (although they don't make it clear in what way the law is unconstitutional ... wouldn't they have quoted the Constitution to make their point?), and apparently they consider the law unwieldy, expensive, and detrimental to the normal business of Arizona Law Enforcement Personnel.
On the other hand, neither Delaware nor D.C. have had to deal with the problems congruent with a flood of illegal immigrants.
When was a Delaware rancher murdered by immigrants? When was the last time a Delaware Deputy Sheriff was shot by drug traffickers from Mexico? Which was the last Delaware hospital closed because illegal immigrants were inundating the emergency rooms with requests for health services ... for which they could not pay, but the hospital was legally obligated to accept them 'anyway'?
And are there signs posted in the vicinity of Delaware's Southern Border stating that it is unsafe to travel there, because of the high volume of aggressive drug traffickers?
Arizona is fighting back. And they have already received over a half-million dollars in donations for their 'legal defense fund' .. mostly from people who don't even live in Arizona.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced today that she is creating a fund for individuals to donate toward the upcoming court date, regarding the law. Reportedly, 9,000 contributions have come in so far that total more than $500,000. Over 7,000 of those donations came from individuals outside of the state. The law has come under heavy fire from the federal government, and has been the focus of a number of different lawsuits. One of those lawsuits was filed earlier in the week by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The fund even has a web site: www.keepazsafe.com. Opponents to the law have said that they do not believe that immigration laws should differ from state to state, and that there needs to be one federal law to ensure that our borders are secure.
(link to donation site added)
_________________________________________
What's wrong with this picture?
Our border states find themselves obliged to "do the job that American's won't do".
That is, secure our borders.
We need a new President, a new Administration. We need someone who will do the job they were hired to do. The simplest expression of this constitutional imperative may be to "Ensure Domestic Tranquility".
Unfortunately, this Administration interprets this clause in the preamble to the Constitution to mean that the individual states will not upset the tranquility of this Administration.
And that's just wrong.
This administration should be charging and convicting people who deny citizens the right to vote without intimidation.
It should be the first line of defense of our borders ... not the unreliable and lazy "final line of defense".
And it should NOT be wasting time and resources by persecuting states who are trying to do something to resolve the Illegal Immigration problem.
What's wrong with this picture?
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
_____________________________________
UPDATE: July 16, 2010:
Here is a Fox TV Interview with the DOJ whistleblower attorney who described the machinations in the Voter Rights Division of the Obama Department of Justice regarding the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation at a Philadelphia voting location during the 2008 Presidential Election.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Computer Problems
Haven't blogged for a while.
But I have a good excuse:
I think it had something to do with filing my taxes electronically.
But I have a good excuse:
I think it had something to do with filing my taxes electronically.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
McDonald!
McDonald Special Edition
As is true with most folks who read this blog, you are probably aware that the June 28, 2010, Supreme Court decision on "McDonald (et al) vs City of Chicago, Illinois (et al.)" heralds a new, and more traditional, interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And a lot of us like it!
It's not the 'whole answer', and there are still questions about what other restrictions may be applied to firearm ownership,. such as Registration. And the "Gun Show Loophole". And ... well, wait a minute!
Just what DOES that decision mean?
And in fact, just what does the decision SAY? And what were the points raised by the case, what was resolved, what was left for future legal gymnastics?
Finally, why was it a 5/4 decision by the SCOTUS, who ruled against the majority, and what were their arguments?
Whew! The more I read, the less I realize I actually understand.
Thanks to the Magic of the Internet, there are sources which can answer some, even many, of these questions.
In keeping with the Corporate Motto here at Geek Central: "We Surf The Net So You Don't Have To!"
(Either that, or we just surf the net anyway, and pass the good stuff on.)
Here are some good places to look for more information:
First the original link to this article was found at Musings of a Geek with a .45, and leads us to a "Zmag" article titled McDonald Special Edition.
I suspect this is not the best link, as it seems to begin in the middle of a multi-frame article.
Try this link instead. And remember it assumes you're smart enough to find the ZOOM control (look for the orange rectangle) and know to advance to the next page using the right-arrow. Okay, if you can't figure it out, just ... either go back to the porno channels or move on to the next article.
The above links (not the porno channels, the ZMAG article) discusses the dichotomy between the five "for the plaintiff" votes vs the four "for the defendant" votes, and the FIVE different opinions submitted by the nine SCOTUS judges.
Note that Chicago is working hard to undermine the clearly stated fundamentals of the Second Amendment.
The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people's hands.Other restrictions in that ordinance:The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.
Registration? Well ... that isn't a big deal anymore, is it? Historically, "registration" has been the first step to "confiscation", but states (and cities) can't do that anymore, can they?_ Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
_ Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks and requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the police department, much as sex offenders are now required to do.
_ Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
_ Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range.
_ Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every registered handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.
Those who have handguns, illegal under the ban, would have 90 days from the day the ordinance is enacted to register those weapons.
Perhaps not, but if Chicago requires registration, then what happens if you can't register your legal firearm because the mechanism for registration has "broken" ... perhaps even deliberately? For example:
The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983.Remember that Gun Control is not about guns. It's about Control.
Monday, June 28, 2010
A Mosque at Ground Zero?
'10,000' throng to stop Ground Zero mosque
Meanwhile, the man who proposed this project has been quoted as saying: "I don't believe in religious dialogue". PJTV auditing his American and 'other' statements has found "extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic..."
Many New Yorkers, and most friends and family of 911 victims, have attended public meetings to discuss the proposal.
The proposal was actually entered sometime before 911, and the prospect has been 'on hold' until just recently.
Here is a YouTube video describing some of the commentary regarding the proposed construction:
Although NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to be in favor of the proposal (latest word is that the city council has approved the project 29-1), many people suspect that the motivation is more than to approve a previously proposed project. Some believer that the construction of a Mosque on Ground Zero would represent the Muslim religion placing it's foot on the neck of a conquered foe. ("It's a stab in the eye of America.")
There may be some justification for this interpretation, as suggested by this PJTV video:
It's difficult to know what's "right", when one considers the anguish of 1911 families versus the lack of understanding of what any gesture may mean from the perspective of an Islamic fundamentalist.
Some think that it would be a gesture to reassure the Muslim populations of the world that we do not hold 'them' personally responsible for the 1911 tragedy.
Others believe that it would be an insult ... to the victims, to the American People as a whole ... and also an acknowledgement that Islam has, by the American permission, forced America to bow in dimmitude to the Islamic Movement.'
And one wonders whether the primary imperitive is for the American People to thus acknowledge that it holds Muslim followers ultimately blameless, or to allow Islamic Terrorists to boast of their conquest over The Great Satan.
Should this decision be left to the City Council of New York City?
Or is it a decision that all of America should share?
Having trouble deciding which should be the priority? Perhaps it would help to have more information about what this Mosque conduction would mean to the Islamic Society. This 11-minute PJTV interview with Walid Shoebat, a former Islamic Terrorist, may help to to understand the issues.
I found it helpful:
"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.Americans all over the country are rallying to stop the construction of a Muslim Mosque at "Ground Zero"; actually on currently unused grounds near to the Twin Towers which were destroyed by terrorist attacks on American infrastructure during the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001.
Meanwhile, the man who proposed this project has been quoted as saying: "I don't believe in religious dialogue". PJTV auditing his American and 'other' statements has found "extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic..."
Many New Yorkers, and most friends and family of 911 victims, have attended public meetings to discuss the proposal.
The proposal was actually entered sometime before 911, and the prospect has been 'on hold' until just recently.
Here is a YouTube video describing some of the commentary regarding the proposed construction:
Although NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to be in favor of the proposal (latest word is that the city council has approved the project 29-1), many people suspect that the motivation is more than to approve a previously proposed project. Some believer that the construction of a Mosque on Ground Zero would represent the Muslim religion placing it's foot on the neck of a conquered foe. ("It's a stab in the eye of America.")
There may be some justification for this interpretation, as suggested by this PJTV video:
It's difficult to know what's "right", when one considers the anguish of 1911 families versus the lack of understanding of what any gesture may mean from the perspective of an Islamic fundamentalist.
Some think that it would be a gesture to reassure the Muslim populations of the world that we do not hold 'them' personally responsible for the 1911 tragedy.
Others believe that it would be an insult ... to the victims, to the American People as a whole ... and also an acknowledgement that Islam has, by the American permission, forced America to bow in dimmitude to the Islamic Movement.'
And one wonders whether the primary imperitive is for the American People to thus acknowledge that it holds Muslim followers ultimately blameless, or to allow Islamic Terrorists to boast of their conquest over The Great Satan.
Should this decision be left to the City Council of New York City?
Or is it a decision that all of America should share?
Having trouble deciding which should be the priority? Perhaps it would help to have more information about what this Mosque conduction would mean to the Islamic Society. This 11-minute PJTV interview with Walid Shoebat, a former Islamic Terrorist, may help to to understand the issues.
I found it helpful:
Sunday, June 27, 2010
NRA and the 1st Amendment
Democrats face criticism from customary allies - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com
This story has been around for several weeks, and I've been following it without comment because I wasn't sure where the story was going, nor on my stand on it.
There's a local talk-show radio host, Lars Larson, who expressed his disappointment that the National Rifle Association seems to have 'caved in' as soon as Congress agreed to exempt the NRA from the egregious requirements of non-profits.
Briefly stated, the bill ( the "DISCLOSE" act) was intended to counter a "loop-hole" in compaign contributions which, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCUSA) allowed Corporations the same First Amendment Protections as individual.
Essentially SCUSA ruled at the first of the year that Corporations could 'speak' about campaign issues, and publish these comments, with the same freedom as individuals.
Since Corporations typically have deeper pockets than most individuals, Congress thought their political comment should be restricted, especially in months toward the end of the campaign season.
So they fabricated a new bill which, if enacted into law, would impose incredibly burdensome reporting regulations on political speech. This bill was also directed at non-profits ... who usually (as in the case of the NRA, for example) have their own agenda.
The NRA objected, and since the NRA wields stronger political power than most non-profits (see the failure of Al Gores's 2000 Presidential Bid, where he couldn't win his own home state of Tennessee because of his anti-gun agenda), Congress decided that they could pass the bill if they could just buy off the NRA. Which they did, as well as several other Non-Profits (including the Sierra Club, the AARP, and the Human Society) which 'profited' by special exeptions:
So that's the back-story.
Our Mr. Larson was disappointed that the NRA was not willing to fight for the 1st amendment with the same fervor as they had historically fought for the 2nd amendment. And I admit, I was also. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA appeared on the Lars Larson Show to explain their position. I was unable to hear that show, so I don't know what the NRA had to say. Except, although this link may disappear, here is what LaPierre had to say.
LaPierre introduced himself (and the NRA) as historically strong proponents for the 1st Amendment. Larson said "Congress wouldn't have offered the NRA a ... thing ... without knowing they couldn't pass the bill without you?"
LaPierre said the Democrats could have rammed the bill down our (the NRA) throats. "We had to make sure that our gun owners were protected. We think it's unconstitutional, we think the supreme court is going to throw it out. ... this probably isn't going anywhere. .. they didn't give us anything. ... we didn't cut a deal ... but we still think it's unconstitutional. If it had not been for the NRA, this thing would probably have gone through two weeks ago. I represent a gun-rights organization, and I would be derelict of our membership if I didn't object to this thing." And he also said "we're the national RIFLE association! "
And he finally said that the NRA is intended to preserve the SECOND amendment.
(Continue listening to the Lars Larson audio comments, if they're still available, to hear even more critical comments.)
And actually, the recent word is that the bill is in deep, deep trouble simply because of the exemptions!
Not because of the 'large' (over 1 million members, been in operation for over ten years) non-profits were opposed to the bill, but because many other non-profits had been left out of the exemptions (including the US Chamber of Commerce) ... the bill is now in danger of not being passed.
For me, I would wish that the NRA would have continued protesting against this bill. But as LaPierre (not my all-time favorite person) implied in his interview, the business of the NRA is the protection of the Second Amendment. And by extension, it follows that the NRA is conceivably not strictly following it's own charter if it allocates donated funds in an effort to protect the First Amendment.
I don't like it. I've spent my entire life looking upon the NRA as my personal Constitutional Savior.
Well, perhaps not. My father and all of my uncles were Life Members of the NRA. I have not been, and in fact my NRA membership is lapsed. I am not a great fan of the NRA ... as I have said before and often for this sort of reason. The NRA is not a Constitutional Savior. It's all they can do the defend the Second Amendment, and they do little enough of that.
But here, the NRA is clear (if not by the Wayne LaPierre interview, but by the consequences of his "constitutional sell-out"), when the NRA signed on to the exemption it placed the spotlight firmly on the constitutional conflict inherent in this bill.
If the Democratic Congress had not decided to 'buy off' the Large Non-Profits, would this bill have been passed with little or no public comment?
I think so.
Here's a shocking thought for you to contemplate:
Who made the biggest stink about the NRA 'buy off''?
The Brady Bunch.
They had nothing to say about the bill per se, but they were so outraged that the NRA was granted an exception, they truly soured the dish that Congress was so assiduously stirring, to serve to the American people before they dropped us into the oven in their "Hansel and Gretel" Chocolate House.
Politics truly makes strange bed-fellows.
Who would ever believe that the Brady Campaign would support the NRA's true agenda?
The only thing that Wayne LaPierre has to offer to the membership of the NRA as that he is an accomplished politician. I'm not saying he expected exactly this outcome, but he DID say that he thought the bill was 'unconstitutional' and, with the list of exceptions listed, the bill is now a Poster Child for a constitutional battle.
I think the Democrats well be found to have become stuck in the Hunny Pot, and this is the lead-in to a depressing (for them) judicial refusal.
Anything that results in a disappointment for the Dems is a 'win' for America.
And you can take that to the bank.
This story has been around for several weeks, and I've been following it without comment because I wasn't sure where the story was going, nor on my stand on it.
There's a local talk-show radio host, Lars Larson, who expressed his disappointment that the National Rifle Association seems to have 'caved in' as soon as Congress agreed to exempt the NRA from the egregious requirements of non-profits.
Briefly stated, the bill ( the "DISCLOSE" act) was intended to counter a "loop-hole" in compaign contributions which, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCUSA) allowed Corporations the same First Amendment Protections as individual.
Essentially SCUSA ruled at the first of the year that Corporations could 'speak' about campaign issues, and publish these comments, with the same freedom as individuals.
Since Corporations typically have deeper pockets than most individuals, Congress thought their political comment should be restricted, especially in months toward the end of the campaign season.
So they fabricated a new bill which, if enacted into law, would impose incredibly burdensome reporting regulations on political speech. This bill was also directed at non-profits ... who usually (as in the case of the NRA, for example) have their own agenda.
The NRA objected, and since the NRA wields stronger political power than most non-profits (see the failure of Al Gores's 2000 Presidential Bid, where he couldn't win his own home state of Tennessee because of his anti-gun agenda), Congress decided that they could pass the bill if they could just buy off the NRA. Which they did, as well as several other Non-Profits (including the Sierra Club, the AARP, and the Human Society) which 'profited' by special exeptions:
"Regardless of your position about the legislation in general, we think you will agree with us that this special carve-out is undemocratic and dangerous," Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, wrote Tuesday to the leaders of more than 100 member-organizations. She sought signatures on a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing "profound disappointment and anger about the special treatment provided to those least in need of special treatment."
If anything, the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence was even more barbed about the concession given to the organization that arguably does more than any other to thwart his own group.
The special treatment for the NRA "is exactly why Americans are so turned off by politics and cynical about Congress," Paul Helmke said in a telephone interview. "It makes no sense at all when you say you're concerned about the role that money plays in politics."
The League of Conservation Voters also opposes the measure, according to a spokeswoman. Aron said the Sierra Club does as well, although officials for that organization could not be reached.
The developments left the fate of the legislation in doubt, according to Democratic aides who said the leadership likely would decide on Wednesday whether to go ahead with earlier plans to seek a vote by the end of the week.
The bill calls for new disclosure requirements to accompany campaign advertising by outside groups, which can now spend millions of dollars in often rough-and-tumble political activity without publicly identifying their donors. Democrats agreed Monday to exempt the NRA from its provisions after concluding the gun owners' group had enough allies in the House to bring down the measure.
The NRA issued a statement saying it would neither support nor oppose the measure as long as the exemption was a part of it — effectively a statement of acquiescence in the bill's passage.
So that's the back-story.
Our Mr. Larson was disappointed that the NRA was not willing to fight for the 1st amendment with the same fervor as they had historically fought for the 2nd amendment. And I admit, I was also. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA appeared on the Lars Larson Show to explain their position. I was unable to hear that show, so I don't know what the NRA had to say. Except, although this link may disappear, here is what LaPierre had to say.
LaPierre introduced himself (and the NRA) as historically strong proponents for the 1st Amendment. Larson said "Congress wouldn't have offered the NRA a ... thing ... without knowing they couldn't pass the bill without you?"
LaPierre said the Democrats could have rammed the bill down our (the NRA) throats. "We had to make sure that our gun owners were protected. We think it's unconstitutional, we think the supreme court is going to throw it out. ... this probably isn't going anywhere. .. they didn't give us anything. ... we didn't cut a deal ... but we still think it's unconstitutional. If it had not been for the NRA, this thing would probably have gone through two weeks ago. I represent a gun-rights organization, and I would be derelict of our membership if I didn't object to this thing." And he also said "we're the national RIFLE association! "
And he finally said that the NRA is intended to preserve the SECOND amendment.
(Continue listening to the Lars Larson audio comments, if they're still available, to hear even more critical comments.)
And actually, the recent word is that the bill is in deep, deep trouble simply because of the exemptions!
Not because of the 'large' (over 1 million members, been in operation for over ten years) non-profits were opposed to the bill, but because many other non-profits had been left out of the exemptions (including the US Chamber of Commerce) ... the bill is now in danger of not being passed.
For me, I would wish that the NRA would have continued protesting against this bill. But as LaPierre (not my all-time favorite person) implied in his interview, the business of the NRA is the protection of the Second Amendment. And by extension, it follows that the NRA is conceivably not strictly following it's own charter if it allocates donated funds in an effort to protect the First Amendment.
I don't like it. I've spent my entire life looking upon the NRA as my personal Constitutional Savior.
Well, perhaps not. My father and all of my uncles were Life Members of the NRA. I have not been, and in fact my NRA membership is lapsed. I am not a great fan of the NRA ... as I have said before and often for this sort of reason. The NRA is not a Constitutional Savior. It's all they can do the defend the Second Amendment, and they do little enough of that.
But here, the NRA is clear (if not by the Wayne LaPierre interview, but by the consequences of his "constitutional sell-out"), when the NRA signed on to the exemption it placed the spotlight firmly on the constitutional conflict inherent in this bill.
If the Democratic Congress had not decided to 'buy off' the Large Non-Profits, would this bill have been passed with little or no public comment?
I think so.
Here's a shocking thought for you to contemplate:
Who made the biggest stink about the NRA 'buy off''?
The Brady Bunch.
They had nothing to say about the bill per se, but they were so outraged that the NRA was granted an exception, they truly soured the dish that Congress was so assiduously stirring, to serve to the American people before they dropped us into the oven in their "Hansel and Gretel" Chocolate House.
Politics truly makes strange bed-fellows.
Who would ever believe that the Brady Campaign would support the NRA's true agenda?
The only thing that Wayne LaPierre has to offer to the membership of the NRA as that he is an accomplished politician. I'm not saying he expected exactly this outcome, but he DID say that he thought the bill was 'unconstitutional' and, with the list of exceptions listed, the bill is now a Poster Child for a constitutional battle.
I think the Democrats well be found to have become stuck in the Hunny Pot, and this is the lead-in to a depressing (for them) judicial refusal.
Anything that results in a disappointment for the Dems is a 'win' for America.
And you can take that to the bank.
Friday, June 25, 2010
USPSA Rule Changes
USPSA Rule Changes 0301101.pdf (application/pdf Object)
The Range Lawyers are Alive and Well, and ... well ... confusing.
The latest Columbia Cascade Newsletter (H/T "The Hobo Brasser") introduces New Rules from USPSA.
I suspect you will find them somewhat confusing. I know I did. Perhaps it would be best if we attribute the confusion to Friday Night Follies ("Yippee! It's The Weekend!")
Still, there are a few rules which are not intrinsically obvious to the casual observer. Most of them are relevant only to those who compete in Production Class, but some of them may affect us all.
Here are a selected few, and my first-impressions. I'm pretty sure I don't understand them, so if anyone has a better (or more authoritative) interpretation, I do, as always, invite corrections.
After all, I'm not an authority and this is not something that I had prior or background knowledge of the changes/improvements or the reasons why they were enacted.
And I'm assuming that these rule changes are definitive, official, and immediately applicable. This may not be the case.
Oh, and my comments only apply to the "Handgun Rules"; not being a 'multi-gun' competitor, I would not dare to comment on "Multi-Gun Rules".
...
Do you not understand where the "Speed Shoot" designation applies? Neither do I.
In this, as with all succeeding rule discussions, it would probably be handy to have your current USPSA Rule Book handy.
(I don't intend to fully parse these rules. The purpose is only to make you aware that they are 'new', and to familiarize you with them in the general sense. I hope that this will lead to a fuller discussion.)
This puts the burden on the stage construction crew to ensure that it's not possible (or at least, not easy) to hit the platform rather than the plate.
Three comments:
I'm not sure how or whether this is an improvement on existing rules, but it is clear that the intention is that the shooter uses ammunition carried on the belt before using ammunition carried in the pocket.
Pfaugh!
Sorry, I can't say this in a kinder, more gentle way: This is a stupid rule.
Not "stupid" because it's not a 'good idea', but "stupid" because it is unenforceable.
There is no penalty associated with this rule. If there is no penalty, there is no way to enforce the rule.
Is it possible to assign a Procedural Penalty for failure to follow this rule? I don't know why. Procedural Rules are enforceable only if the mandate to reload only from the belt ammunition-carrier is part of the written stage procedure. If it is written in the stage procedure, it doesn't need to be in the rule book.
Have I missed something here? I hope someone can tell me how, as a Range Officer, I can enforce this rule.
Don't bullshit me here, Boys.
It sees to address a rare situation where the competitor doesn't follow the RO around during scoring of his targets, and challenges the score after the target is taped.
Okay, so we now that it's the competitor's responsibility to witness and accept the scoring of each target. Is this something new? No, clearly not.
As far as I can tell, it only circumvents the competitors ability to challenge the scoring of an individual target AFTER it has been scored by the Range Officer, and AFTER the target has been taped by the follow-up tape-apes.
Hmmmm. I suppose it's worth the effort to make a rule to prevent a competitor from challenging a call AFTER the target has been scored and taped. And it does reinforce the encouragement of the competitor to follow the Range Officer as he/she scores the targets.
Frankly, I have to fall back on the "Old School" injunction: "The Competitor Will Witness The Scoring Of Each Individual Target".
In other words: "If you snooze, you lose".
Okay, I can live with that. It just seems a shame that the situation is so common that it requires a rule to justify it.
But it seems as if at least the last part of the first sentence is missing here. It's not intuitively obvious why this rule is needed. Is it just me? What are the conditions under which "failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties" will be applied?
Perhaps my copy of the summary is defective. Or perhaps I am defective.
---
The rules about Arbitration may be significant, but I don't see anything that applies to most shooting situations. Ho-hum.
---
I cannot count the number of times when the shooter is enjoined to face uprange, and he ends up with his body skewed to one side or another while his face is turned 'uprange'.
This is a welcome addition, or should I say "clarification", and I look forward to correcting the wayward competitor who thinks he has gained some advantage to twisting his body into a pretzel shape. It's silly to do so, but now we have a rule which not only supports the supposed "right way" to stand but also allows Range Officers to correct the competitor.
Still, it's a small, almost insignificant rule change because there is not that much advantage to be gained by assuming the Pretzel Position.
-------------------------
There are a plethora of other rules in this ... 'announcement' ... and you should go read the whole thing to determine your own interpretation of whether or not it applies to your own special situation.
Generally speaking, these are all 'special rules'. The most commonly will not affect folks who are competing for the fun of it.
Which is just another way of saying that these rules are intended only to discourage "gamers".
[sigh]
In my humble opinion, it takes some of the fun out of the competition. When you can't "game" a stage, competition loses some of its flavor.
The Range Lawyers are Alive and Well, and ... well ... confusing.
The latest Columbia Cascade Newsletter (H/T "The Hobo Brasser") introduces New Rules from USPSA.
I suspect you will find them somewhat confusing. I know I did. Perhaps it would be best if we attribute the confusion to Friday Night Follies ("Yippee! It's The Weekend!")
Still, there are a few rules which are not intrinsically obvious to the casual observer. Most of them are relevant only to those who compete in Production Class, but some of them may affect us all.
Here are a selected few, and my first-impressions. I'm pretty sure I don't understand them, so if anyone has a better (or more authoritative) interpretation, I do, as always, invite corrections.
After all, I'm not an authority and this is not something that I had prior or background knowledge of the changes/improvements or the reasons why they were enacted.
And I'm assuming that these rule changes are definitive, official, and immediately applicable. This may not be the case.
Oh, and my comments only apply to the "Handgun Rules"; not being a 'multi-gun' competitor, I would not dare to comment on "Multi-Gun Rules".
...
1.2.2.3 “Speed Shoot”-Courses of fire consisting of one continuous string of fire not exceeding 16 rounds shot on one or more arrays of multiple targets from a single location or view. No more than 8 rounds may be required without a mandatory reload and no more than one mandatory reload may be required in the course of fire. Stage may be scored either Comstock or Virginia Count. See Rule 9.2.3.2.Second Paragraph does not apply to "Club Matches" (Level I).
Level II or higher matches are allowed no more than one of these courses of fire per every five stages. The total points available in these courses of fire shall not exceed 20% of the total points available in any match. Weak /Strong hand may be stipulated after the reload is complete.
Do you not understand where the "Speed Shoot" designation applies? Neither do I.
In this, as with all succeeding rule discussions, it would probably be handy to have your current USPSA Rule Book handy.
(I don't intend to fully parse these rules. The purpose is only to make you aware that they are 'new', and to familiarize you with them in the general sense. I hope that this will lead to a fuller discussion.)
4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit, are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:The salient point in this rule is, I believe, that historically it has been permissible (especially in Club Matches ... see above) to score a 'hit' on a plate when the plate has fallen because of a hit which actually struck the supporting structure. After this rule is enacted, if a plate falls because the shot hit the thing-a-ma-bob that holds the plate off the ground, it's considered a REF ("Range Equipment Failure") and results in a mandatory reshoot. Which may grow tiresome, and expensive in terms of ammunition expended to complete a single stage.
1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.
2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.
This puts the burden on the stage construction crew to ensure that it's not possible (or at least, not easy) to hit the platform rather than the plate.
Three comments:
- This is only determined if the RO cannot see the mark of a bullet on the plate, which directly implies that each plate MUST be re-painted between shooters;
- The stage must be set up so that it is at least difficult, preferably impossible, to hit the support structure. Again, this puts the burden on the host club to insure that only the steel target is visible to the shooter.
- This is obviously intended to apply mainly to plates; however, it is possible to hit the base of a Pepper Popper and shake it sufficiently that the popper falls. Again, the steel target MUST be painted between shooters to insure that this rule can be applied. If the RO cannot definitively determine that the target has not been struck by the bullet, the shooter must reshoot the stage. There is no other option available to the Range Officer.
5.2.4 During the course of fire after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/or speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose.Yes, this is essentially a re-iteration of an old rule which requires the shooter to use the magazines in his/her "mag-carriers" before dipping into the pocket to get the 'back-up' magazines.
Unless specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing, a competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in apparel pocket(s) and retrieve and use them without penalty, providing that the location of the apparel pocket does not violate the requirements of Appendix D, Item 12 (subject to the provisions of Rule 6.2.5.1)
I'm not sure how or whether this is an improvement on existing rules, but it is clear that the intention is that the shooter uses ammunition carried on the belt before using ammunition carried in the pocket.
Pfaugh!
Sorry, I can't say this in a kinder, more gentle way: This is a stupid rule.
Not "stupid" because it's not a 'good idea', but "stupid" because it is unenforceable.
There is no penalty associated with this rule. If there is no penalty, there is no way to enforce the rule.
Is it possible to assign a Procedural Penalty for failure to follow this rule? I don't know why. Procedural Rules are enforceable only if the mandate to reload only from the belt ammunition-carrier is part of the written stage procedure. If it is written in the stage procedure, it doesn't need to be in the rule book.
Have I missed something here? I hope someone can tell me how, as a Range Officer, I can enforce this rule.
Don't bullshit me here, Boys.
9.1.3 Prematurely Patched Targets - If a target is prematurely patched or taped, which prevents a Range Official from determining the actual score, the Range Officer must order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire. However, if following the scoring of a target by any assigned Range Officer, the target is patched or taped by anyone other than a Range Officer, the score will stand as called regardless of the competitor’s opportunity to see the target in question and the competitor will not be permitted to appeal the score as called.This is an odd one.
It sees to address a rare situation where the competitor doesn't follow the RO around during scoring of his targets, and challenges the score after the target is taped.
Okay, so we now that it's the competitor's responsibility to witness and accept the scoring of each target. Is this something new? No, clearly not.
As far as I can tell, it only circumvents the competitors ability to challenge the scoring of an individual target AFTER it has been scored by the Range Officer, and AFTER the target has been taped by the follow-up tape-apes.
Hmmmm. I suppose it's worth the effort to make a rule to prevent a competitor from challenging a call AFTER the target has been scored and taped. And it does reinforce the encouragement of the competitor to follow the Range Officer as he/she scores the targets.
Frankly, I have to fall back on the "Old School" injunction: "The Competitor Will Witness The Scoring Of Each Individual Target".
In other words: "If you snooze, you lose".
Okay, I can live with that. It just seems a shame that the situation is so common that it requires a rule to justify it.
9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4).I don't see anything new here, except for the last sentence. Again, I'm not comparing it to the current rules, which (if I recall correctly) require that all of the Upper A-zone or at least 50% of the 'main' A-zone of a target be available to hit for score.
See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.
But it seems as if at least the last part of the first sentence is missing here. It's not intuitively obvious why this rule is needed. Is it just me? What are the conditions under which "failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties" will be applied?
Perhaps my copy of the summary is defective. Or perhaps I am defective.
---
The rules about Arbitration may be significant, but I don't see anything that applies to most shooting situations. Ho-hum.
---
Appendix A3 Facing Uprange—Face and feet pointing straight uprange with shoulders parallel to the backstop.Now, this is new.
I cannot count the number of times when the shooter is enjoined to face uprange, and he ends up with his body skewed to one side or another while his face is turned 'uprange'.
This is a welcome addition, or should I say "clarification", and I look forward to correcting the wayward competitor who thinks he has gained some advantage to twisting his body into a pretzel shape. It's silly to do so, but now we have a rule which not only supports the supposed "right way" to stand but also allows Range Officers to correct the competitor.
Still, it's a small, almost insignificant rule change because there is not that much advantage to be gained by assuming the Pretzel Position.
Add to Appendix D4 under special conditions: Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor should their ammo fail to meet the minimum.Okay, this is another minor point which is apparently intended to enforce 'other rules'. I have no problem with this rule, other than to regret that it is necessary to enact it to further discourage violation of 'other rules'.
-------------------------
There are a plethora of other rules in this ... 'announcement' ... and you should go read the whole thing to determine your own interpretation of whether or not it applies to your own special situation.
Generally speaking, these are all 'special rules'. The most commonly will not affect folks who are competing for the fun of it.
Which is just another way of saying that these rules are intended only to discourage "gamers".
[sigh]
In my humble opinion, it takes some of the fun out of the competition. When you can't "game" a stage, competition loses some of its flavor.
Xavier Thoughts: Checking a Used 1911 with a Purchase in Mind
Xavier Thoughts: Checking a Used 1911 with a Purchase in Mind
My "old friend" (no, we've never met, never talked, and he is a friend' in my mind only ... but I have a great deal of respect for his writing and his experience) Xavier has written an excellent treatise describing the things to check when buying a 'used' 1911 pistol.
In fact, sometimes even 'factory NIB' pistols would best be evaluated by subjecting them to the same tests.
This is one of those "Gee, I wish I had written this!" blog articles. I couldn't have written it, wouldn't even try.
Feel free to bookmark it, and even to comment on it
I have.
My "old friend" (no, we've never met, never talked, and he is a friend' in my mind only ... but I have a great deal of respect for his writing and his experience) Xavier has written an excellent treatise describing the things to check when buying a 'used' 1911 pistol.
In fact, sometimes even 'factory NIB' pistols would best be evaluated by subjecting them to the same tests.
This is one of those "Gee, I wish I had written this!" blog articles. I couldn't have written it, wouldn't even try.
Feel free to bookmark it, and even to comment on it
I have.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
We Con the World, the Turkish 'Aid to Gaza' Song - Mpg
PJTV - BANNED BY YOUTUBE: We Con the World, the Turkish 'Aid to Gaza' Song - Mpg
Presented with no comment.
(Because I can't get the code to embed the video.)
Presented with no comment.
(Because I can't get the code to embed the video.)
Monday, June 14, 2010
OREGON - UTAH CONCEALED CARRY - FIREARM TRAINING
OREGON - UTAH CONCEALED CARRY - FIREARM TRAINING: "UTAH PERMIT CARRY CONCEALED PISTOL IN 33 STATES /- SEE FACTS!
No Shooting, No Test.
Well, there's a fine recommendation for taking the class, isn't it?
Why can't you just sent in your email address and receive certification by return email?
Oh, you can?
Wonderful!
I'm encouraged to take this class to ensure that I'm "safe to carry".
NOT!
OREGON - UTAH Be Armed Be Safe.
We certify both! 2 classes weekly, no shooting, no test, just show up, please be on time. Oregon $35 Utah $35 both $70, get certified now. We issue only original Official Certificates, no counterfeits."
No Shooting, No Test.
Well, there's a fine recommendation for taking the class, isn't it?
Why can't you just sent in your email address and receive certification by return email?
Oh, you can?
Wonderful!
I'm encouraged to take this class to ensure that I'm "safe to carry".
NOT!
Come to the USA
YouTube - Ray Stevens - Come to the USA
Just interesting and fun stuff. You don't have to be an IPSC Competitor to enjoy and appreciate humor, do you?
(Heck, you don't even need to be an American!!!)
[H/T: The Hobo Brasser]
Just interesting and fun stuff. You don't have to be an IPSC Competitor to enjoy and appreciate humor, do you?
(Heck, you don't even need to be an American!!!)
[H/T: The Hobo Brasser]
Brits vs Americans: who is the most violent, how does gun ownership affect the respective cultures?
There's an interesting dialogue going on between Kevin Bacon at "The Smallest Majority" and a Scotsman named James at "SCOT goes POP!" about the British policy of severely restricting the private ownership of firearms.
Essentially, Bacon (the American) is an adherent of the philosophy of "More Guns, Less Crime" (as advocated by John Lotte, Jr). He really believes that the individual citizen should be "allowed" to protect himself/herself and his/her family and property.
But James (the Scot) believes that the British policy and law preventing Britains from owning firearms reduces the number of "gun deaths" in his country, and that's all that matters. Nothing in the Scot's "Why 'being right' isn't good enough for them - a cut-out-and-keep guide article (which includes his "ten question challenge" ... and first you may care to read James' follow-up article "The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned") discusses either the right or the responsibility of a person to self-defense ... the entire point is to elucidate all the BAD ways that private firearms ownership can affect society.
Yep. Lots of ways that guns can be bad for people, but not a single suggestion that owning a weapon can prevent predation on innocents. James is determined to make the point that "Guns Are BAD!", and (one supposes) that Only Bad People Have Guns.
I have presented many ways in which the encroaching Socialism of British Governmental Policy have made the British (including Scots and Irish) seem to move Brits from the classifications of "citizens" to "subjects" ... subject to the arbitrary whims of their government. And if I seem to be excessively vituperative today it may just be on account of the way which our current Federal Administration seems determined to follow the European (and British) example in redefining our culture, and eliminating our freedoms in preference to a 'Strong Central Government'.
So perhaps it is not entirely fair for me to negatively compare the British Culture with the American Culture, especially in terms of individual freedoms. After all, are we so far away from finding ourselves equally subject to the unilateral determination of our Federal system, especially considering the huge number of unelected "Czars" who are sneaking their way into the American decision-making process?
One only needs to look at the ATF, who last week redefined the legal essentials of Federal Control of "transfer of firearms" (which requires ATF permission) from "ownership" of firearms to "possession of firearms", to understand how easily this creeping control can administratively be inserted into our day-to-day exercise of our Constitutional freedoms.
Yes, I had to comment on James' article. The daily lives and preferences of common people may soon mean less than a pile of beans to the American Czars, but I can only speak to the America of Today -- June of 2010 -- and how I hope it will continue rather than the way I fear it may become.
So here is the extended comment I made to James' article, which is probably incomprehensible unless you have read his original comment and understand the context.
Note that this is slightly longer than the version actually posted. The website has a 4MB (4096-character) limit on the comment length, and as frequent readers probably realize it is almost impossible for me to complete a though under these restrictions. Consequently, I have had to drastically edit my final accepted version in the actual comments section of James' blog.
I trust I have retained the flavor, which I'm afraid is a bit ... dismissive ... of the current British culture and entirely too laudatory of American culture.
I'm a throw-back who believes in the sanctity of the home, the rights of a citizen, and the hominem that "good fences make good neighbors".
I can't stop myself from jumping into the argument, because my opinion is that if there is a conflict between a private person and an 'aggressor', chances are that the bad-guy has a weapon of some kind and has also in some manner acting as a predator stalking a victim. In that scenario, the 'victim' should be allowed to protect himself/herself with whatever weapon seems most effective.
And the most effective defense weapon is a firearm, especially given that (a) the "victim" is most likely someone who is definitively unable to put up a good defense based on training, weapons at hand, situational awareness, and body mass; and (b) the aggressor is likely to have a weapon, more aggressive (and probably stronger) than his chosen victim, and has the advantage of surprise.
Read the original article, compare the comments which I made to James' article to that which is here presented: the greatest difference between the two versions (besides length of the comment) is a couple of embedded links providing background and substantiation of the comments.
.
Essentially, Bacon (the American) is an adherent of the philosophy of "More Guns, Less Crime" (as advocated by John Lotte, Jr). He really believes that the individual citizen should be "allowed" to protect himself/herself and his/her family and property.
But James (the Scot) believes that the British policy and law preventing Britains from owning firearms reduces the number of "gun deaths" in his country, and that's all that matters. Nothing in the Scot's "Why 'being right' isn't good enough for them - a cut-out-and-keep guide article (which includes his "ten question challenge" ... and first you may care to read James' follow-up article "The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned") discusses either the right or the responsibility of a person to self-defense ... the entire point is to elucidate all the BAD ways that private firearms ownership can affect society.
Yep. Lots of ways that guns can be bad for people, but not a single suggestion that owning a weapon can prevent predation on innocents. James is determined to make the point that "Guns Are BAD!", and (one supposes) that Only Bad People Have Guns.
I have presented many ways in which the encroaching Socialism of British Governmental Policy have made the British (including Scots and Irish) seem to move Brits from the classifications of "citizens" to "subjects" ... subject to the arbitrary whims of their government. And if I seem to be excessively vituperative today it may just be on account of the way which our current Federal Administration seems determined to follow the European (and British) example in redefining our culture, and eliminating our freedoms in preference to a 'Strong Central Government'.
So perhaps it is not entirely fair for me to negatively compare the British Culture with the American Culture, especially in terms of individual freedoms. After all, are we so far away from finding ourselves equally subject to the unilateral determination of our Federal system, especially considering the huge number of unelected "Czars" who are sneaking their way into the American decision-making process?
One only needs to look at the ATF, who last week redefined the legal essentials of Federal Control of "transfer of firearms" (which requires ATF permission) from "ownership" of firearms to "possession of firearms", to understand how easily this creeping control can administratively be inserted into our day-to-day exercise of our Constitutional freedoms.
Yes, I had to comment on James' article. The daily lives and preferences of common people may soon mean less than a pile of beans to the American Czars, but I can only speak to the America of Today -- June of 2010 -- and how I hope it will continue rather than the way I fear it may become.
So here is the extended comment I made to James' article, which is probably incomprehensible unless you have read his original comment and understand the context.
Note that this is slightly longer than the version actually posted. The website has a 4MB (4096-character) limit on the comment length, and as frequent readers probably realize it is almost impossible for me to complete a though under these restrictions. Consequently, I have had to drastically edit my final accepted version in the actual comments section of James' blog.
I trust I have retained the flavor, which I'm afraid is a bit ... dismissive ... of the current British culture and entirely too laudatory of American culture.
I'm a throw-back who believes in the sanctity of the home, the rights of a citizen, and the hominem that "good fences make good neighbors".
I can't stop myself from jumping into the argument, because my opinion is that if there is a conflict between a private person and an 'aggressor', chances are that the bad-guy has a weapon of some kind and has also in some manner acting as a predator stalking a victim. In that scenario, the 'victim' should be allowed to protect himself/herself with whatever weapon seems most effective.
And the most effective defense weapon is a firearm, especially given that (a) the "victim" is most likely someone who is definitively unable to put up a good defense based on training, weapons at hand, situational awareness, and body mass; and (b) the aggressor is likely to have a weapon, more aggressive (and probably stronger) than his chosen victim, and has the advantage of surprise.
Read the original article, compare the comments which I made to James' article to that which is here presented: the greatest difference between the two versions (besides length of the comment) is a couple of embedded links providing background and substantiation of the comments.
"[J]aw-dropping, logic-defying belief" is it?
Well, I think you have the right phrase there. The question is, whose jaw is dropping?
It may be both your jaw and mine having difficulty maintaining equilibrium considering the contradictory claims of opinion being tossed about here.
James, your ten-point questionnaire would have more believability if you would do the research and find the answers to the questions you pose.
I once had an extended discussion with a British policeman who described himself as the "ASBO Monger". He was proud of the number of Anti-Social Behavior Orders he had handed out. When I asked why he didn't just arrest the Bad Boys (Yobs) on the first offense ... no matter how egregious their behavior, he seemed confused. That just wasn't they way they did things over there.
The thing is, my "ASBO Monger" friend was determined to make the case (as you did) that Britain has fewer firearms-related deaths than does America.
Well, duh. Americans are allowed to protect their persons, their property, and their families. Brits are not.
That doesn't mean that Britain has fewer assaults; they don't, they have more. The point you consider significant is that the assaults are less likely to result in a death.
Instead, the home-owner is likely subject to a bad beating, or a stabbing, because the aggressor (the ASBO-burdened YOB) has a weapon like a knife and a club, and the victim has no weapon at all. And the YOB has a plan, which is to kick ass until the victim is a bloody mess on the floor.
YOBs don't HAVE to kill anybody to have their way, although it doesn't much bother them if they do.
As a Consequence, the British Government has decided to resolve the situation by ... making it illegal for people to have knives. That's good, clear thinking.
And if a British subject (Y'all aren't "citizens" any more, did you notice that?) chooses to defend himself, his home and his family, he is MORE likely than the aggressor to spend serious jail-time than the YOU who attacked him. Have you looked at the statistics?
Compare "Deaths by firearms" with "violent assaults" in Britain vs America. I have. I found it meaningful. But I won't give the citations, the statistics, the references. You chose to make your point without references, you have the onus of proving your point.
Americans don't typically treat their YOBs gently. We have them, but the resolution is usually Darwinian
As you can see, especially from the example of "the tragic case of Andrew de Vries", the response to crime in America is much more inclined to the protection of the rights of the victim, than to the rights of the guilty. Mr de Vries was trespassing and acting in an aggressive and intrusive manner. Most folks here-abouts have a more respectful manner ... or they are considered a bad health risk and treated appropriately.
The cultural dissonance is that you treat it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the home-owner.
We treated it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the aggressor.
We don't expect nice people to climb over our fence and bang on our back door in the middle of the night. This is the "Darwinian Solution" which I mentioned earlier. Nice people bang on the front door and wait until they are noticed. Fences are to keep good people out; a gun is used to deal with not-good people. Folks who don't recognize the boundary of acceptable behavior are not generally considered to be trying very hard to meet to our standards of "good people who are only asking for help."
Now, I'm sure you won't acknowledge the legitimacy of "The Castle Defense". Heck, you don't even spell it right. "Defence"? Who the heck taught you to spell ... or, more importantly, to act? Certainly people like the ASBO Monger aren't teaching you to act. Instead, they are teaching your youths that if they are aggressive and rude, and step on toes everywhere they go, nothing particularly bad will happen to the. Bad thing to be teaching your children. Do you start out to be idiots? No, you are training yourselves that way
Not a good idea. Americans don't always do a much better job of bringing up our children, but at least we haven't institutionalized the idea of raising idiots.
(I'm not going to get into politics, but just to comment -- I have to admit that neither side of the Atlantic has a monopoly of electing Idiots to public office, and I'm real sorry about that. I mean that sincerely.)
So, you think you have a better culture than do Americans, because you have fewer "gun deaths".
Is that per-capita, or per assault?
Are your children more often murdered for their cell-phones, or for their sneakers than ours?
That is perhaps a better measure of the deadliness, and the violence, of our respective societies.
And that is my "One-Point List of Questions" may perhaps better go "to the heart of the credibility of any conclusions that could be drawn from the study".
Bottom line, studies and conclusions are based on statistics. You can tweak statistics to suit any conclusion you like best.
I don't like your conclusion, I don't think you have proved it, and I challenge you to answer your own questions.
.
NY Cops Legally Mandated to shoot armed Felons "In The Limbs"
NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly will invite City Council members to fire guns at shooting range - NYPOST.com
The city's top cop, Ray Kelly, is inviting all City Council members to shoot guns at the NYPD's firing range -- as the state Assembly considers legislation to require police officers to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the limbs, rather than aim to kill.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Do you hate your Internet Provider?
Do you hate your Internet Provider?
Me, too!
(click on image for larger format)
Me, too!
(click on image for larger format)
Friday, June 11, 2010
Musings of The GeekWithA.45
Musings of The GeekWithA.45 posted an article yesterday (June 10, 2010) discussing the effect of the Commerce Clause on the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Essentially, the Commerce Clause was not the excuse used for restricting access to firearms.
The justification was .... Taxation!
We probably kinda knew that, but we got all confused. (Okay, so I got all confused.)
If you want to understand how we all got to this sorry state of affairs, where the Federal Government justified its unconstitutional intrusion on the 2nd Amendment, go read the article.
When you're done, I'll have another sorry story to tell you.
Essentially, the Commerce Clause was not the excuse used for restricting access to firearms.
The justification was .... Taxation!
We probably kinda knew that, but we got all confused. (Okay, so I got all confused.)
If you want to understand how we all got to this sorry state of affairs, where the Federal Government justified its unconstitutional intrusion on the 2nd Amendment, go read the article.
When you're done, I'll have another sorry story to tell you.
Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?
Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?
David Codrea writes in the "Gun Rights" section of The Examiner that the ATF has suddenly, inexplicably, changed the definition of "Transfer" in regards to changing the physical possession of a firearm from one person to another.
Previously, if you "transfer" a firearm, it changes ownership.
Now, it is not necessary to give or sell a firearm to another person or 'entity', it is enough to let them have it.
Which means, for example, if you send your firearm to a gunsmith to work on it, you may have to complete all of the same paperwork as you would if you were selling it to the gunsmith.
And that applies to ANY other person. A gunsmith may not have a "dealer's license", so you would have to ship the firearm to a dealer, and the gunsmith would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 before he/she could take possession ... not ownership, but simple possession ... of it.
Please note that this is not a bill in the legislature; Congressional oversight is not a factor. This is an administrative ruling ... by people that you did not get to vote for.
Jim Shepherd has a very nice write-up on this situation with a couple of embedded links to the applicable legal documents, on The Shooting Wire. Since I cannot link to it, I will add his two-cents worth by a full, direct quote:
GO to the links, see what the rulings (again, not "laws") look like, and you can make up your own mind about how happy you are that unelected administrators can so blithly trounce upon your second amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms.
OH, and the election promise by Obama that he "would not take your guns away from you"?
Witness Step Number One of the very convoluted procedure by which Obama is going to ... if not do that precise thing immediately ... make it extremely difficult for you to keep your firearms, and for any service industry to support your ownership.
I ... am ... so ... pissed!
I'm so pissed off, angry and (unreasonably ... we knew he was a politician and therefore a lying S.O.B.) disappointed that I'm not even going to rant about this.
Not right now, anyway.
David Codrea writes in the "Gun Rights" section of The Examiner that the ATF has suddenly, inexplicably, changed the definition of "Transfer" in regards to changing the physical possession of a firearm from one person to another.
Previously, if you "transfer" a firearm, it changes ownership.
Now, it is not necessary to give or sell a firearm to another person or 'entity', it is enough to let them have it.
Which means, for example, if you send your firearm to a gunsmith to work on it, you may have to complete all of the same paperwork as you would if you were selling it to the gunsmith.
And that applies to ANY other person. A gunsmith may not have a "dealer's license", so you would have to ship the firearm to a dealer, and the gunsmith would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 before he/she could take possession ... not ownership, but simple possession ... of it.
Please note that this is not a bill in the legislature; Congressional oversight is not a factor. This is an administrative ruling ... by people that you did not get to vote for.
Jim Shepherd has a very nice write-up on this situation with a couple of embedded links to the applicable legal documents, on The Shooting Wire. Since I cannot link to it, I will add his two-cents worth by a full, direct quote:
Transfers, Paperwork and Questions
ATF-WTF?
The ATF has very quietly reversed a forty-plus year interpretation of the Gun Control Act. Under the "new" interpretation, any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer to any agent or business (that includes engineering/design firms, lawyers, testing labs, gun writers or whatever) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
What that means is the amount of paperwork, red tape and potential for inadvertent ATF violations has been increased - exponentially.
Say, for instance, a gun company wants testing done at an independent lab. Under the "new" interpretation, the test gun must be transferred using a form 4473 and a NICS check as if it were a firearm being sold at retail. If the test facility does not hold a FFL, the gun must be transferred to a nearby dealer, local laws complied with, and the dealer now becomes responsible for tracking the firearm on his records. If the test facility is located in one of several locales that are decidedly firearms - unfriendly- then there are the inevitable delays.
Under this ruling, it might become easier for a registered company agent to actually take the firearm to the test facility and wait while the testing is done.
If there were any history of abuse in the longstanding process, modification might seem more reasonable and less capricious. However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation says the ATF has been unable to provide a single instance during the past four decades where a single firearm shipped in reliance on the ATF's rulings was used in a crime.
ATF officials admit it's a radical change. The longstanding interpretation of what is not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 was first made in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") It was upheld - and further clarified - again in 1972.
The bottom line...the ATF now says those long-standing rulings were wrong. Taking 42 years to decide that seems a little excessive, even for a federal bureaucrat. The NSSF has suggested that ATF "appears" to be under the impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes "transfers".
It is appropriate to use "appears" in that instance because the ATF admits that neither the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act defines "transfer".
So why the change after forty years? Seems no one except the suits at the ATF can answer that question - and Deputy Director Kenneth E. Melson, the man who authored the ruling, is not talking.
You can read the ruling for yourself at http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf.
In a separate ruling issued Friday, the ATF has initiated a ruling that says ATF headquarters has oversight of all administrative actions prior to notices being sent to the licensee. In effect, this ruling establishes the final approval authority of denial of applications for licenses, suspensions, revocations of licenses or imposition of civil fines.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel, Larry Keane says, "NSSF supports that all cases where revocation is recommended by the field must be cleared by ATF headquarters prior to issuance of notice to FFL. This will promote consistency of interpretation of the law and regulations."
You can read that ruling at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13392.pdf
More happening out there, and we'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd
GO to the links, see what the rulings (again, not "laws") look like, and you can make up your own mind about how happy you are that unelected administrators can so blithly trounce upon your second amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms.
OH, and the election promise by Obama that he "would not take your guns away from you"?
Witness Step Number One of the very convoluted procedure by which Obama is going to ... if not do that precise thing immediately ... make it extremely difficult for you to keep your firearms, and for any service industry to support your ownership.
I ... am ... so ... pissed!
I'm so pissed off, angry and (unreasonably ... we knew he was a politician and therefore a lying S.O.B.) disappointed that I'm not even going to rant about this.
Not right now, anyway.
New 'Red Dawn' to attack communism again!
New 'Red Dawn' to attack communism again!
Oh my!
Someone is trying to release a re-make of Red Dawn, the 1984 adventure movie which starred (among other 'young-gun' type Hollywood luminaries) the late Patrick Swayze and the almost-too-late Charlie Sheen.
And the Main Stream Media doesn't like it, no sirree!
Why?
Because this time, the Bad Guys aren't Cuban and Russian, but Chinese.
We're running out of Politically Correct Bad Guys here, folks.
Looking at the trailers on reddawn2010, it doesn't look like much of a movie. But HEY! It's Hollywood, they're not suppose to be accurate. All together now: "It's Only A Moveeeee!"
In the last few years there have been a lot of politically correct movies about America's fight against terrorism, most of which earned about a dollar and a half at the box office. Nobody (except the movie-going audience, the few of which actually watched them) complained about America-bashing Hollywood.
But to put the Chinese in the role of the Bad Guys! Wow! The MSM is all over it like stink on what-you-avoid-on-the-sidewalk.
The Guardian doesn't like. The New Yorker doesn't like it.
These sound like recommendations to go see the show, even though there isn't yet a release date (IMDB.COM does list it; but the November, 2o1o release date on the movie's website has a strike-out line drawn through it. I assume this means that it's still questionable whether the movie will EVER be released.)
Here's the trailer for the movie, and it is about as boring as it can be:
There's even a website set up called "Anti-reddawn2010". But it's a little difficult trying to figure out what it has to say, because it's mostly written in (you guessed it) Chinese.
The only good news, out of all this, is that there's an option on the reddawn2010 website where you can build your own "alert" against 'enemies of the state' (or "suppressive persons ... whatever).
Here's my own personal Alert: click for the full-size image.
Kinda helps get you into the mood, doesn't it?
Oh my!
Someone is trying to release a re-make of Red Dawn, the 1984 adventure movie which starred (among other 'young-gun' type Hollywood luminaries) the late Patrick Swayze and the almost-too-late Charlie Sheen.
And the Main Stream Media doesn't like it, no sirree!
Why?
Because this time, the Bad Guys aren't Cuban and Russian, but Chinese.
We're running out of Politically Correct Bad Guys here, folks.
Looking at the trailers on reddawn2010, it doesn't look like much of a movie. But HEY! It's Hollywood, they're not suppose to be accurate. All together now: "It's Only A Moveeeee!"
In the last few years there have been a lot of politically correct movies about America's fight against terrorism, most of which earned about a dollar and a half at the box office. Nobody (except the movie-going audience, the few of which actually watched them) complained about America-bashing Hollywood.
But to put the Chinese in the role of the Bad Guys! Wow! The MSM is all over it like stink on what-you-avoid-on-the-sidewalk.
The Guardian doesn't like. The New Yorker doesn't like it.
These sound like recommendations to go see the show, even though there isn't yet a release date (IMDB.COM does list it; but the November, 2o1o release date on the movie's website has a strike-out line drawn through it. I assume this means that it's still questionable whether the movie will EVER be released.)
Here's the trailer for the movie, and it is about as boring as it can be:
There's even a website set up called "Anti-reddawn2010". But it's a little difficult trying to figure out what it has to say, because it's mostly written in (you guessed it) Chinese.
The only good news, out of all this, is that there's an option on the reddawn2010 website where you can build your own "alert" against 'enemies of the state' (or "suppressive persons ... whatever).
Here's my own personal Alert: click for the full-size image.
Kinda helps get you into the mood, doesn't it?
Norm's Unforgivable Gift
I have been focusing on the misfortunes of others. That's unforgivable, indicative of a low sense of humor and faithlessness toward one's friends.
Perhaps I can make it up by showing something 'fortuitous' that happened on the range. Specifically, at an IPSC match.
Really, I'm amazed that it has not previously occurred to me, that I should report on Norm's Unforgivable Gift.
Again, this happened at Tri County Gun Club a few years ago, on a soggy damp morning in Bay Two.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think this was a classifier stage. A very simple one, at that.
The shooting problem was to knock down six mixed steel (Pepper Poppers and U.S. poppers), reload, then knock down six more.
Norm The Ungrateful was up, and we were primed for a six-second run, maybe seven seconds, max. And he had it going in, but he fired the first four shots ... and got a jam!
While Norm was fiddling with his pistol, trying to clear the jam as quickly as possible, the fifth popper just ... fell down.
It may have been a matter of habit; when Norm shoots, the steel falls like tenpins. Norm would probably be inclined to think he had knocked down the first four poppers so solidly that it set up a tremor in the earth. Or else, he just intimidated it down.
Whatever the reason, he was saved a shot (which shaved something like a quarter, perhaps a third of a second, off his stage time, which was a total of 11 seconds rather than the expected six seconds).
When he completed clearing the jam, he just knocked down the sixth popper, reloaded, and knocked down the last six. I'm not even certain that he realized, at the time, that one steel had sacrificed itself in a paroxysm of terror.
What amazes me now is that I have apparently never thought to post it here.
The thing is, we were all in such jaw-dropping awe that the Range Officer just recorded the time and score and let him walk away from what would normally be a "Range Equipment Failure".
We all knew he was going to win the match anyway, and it was only a Club Match. At least, that's what we told our private selves.
The truth was, we weren't entirely certain that this wasn't the way he had planned to shoot the stage.
[YouTube Link here]
Perhaps I can make it up by showing something 'fortuitous' that happened on the range. Specifically, at an IPSC match.
Really, I'm amazed that it has not previously occurred to me, that I should report on Norm's Unforgivable Gift.
Again, this happened at Tri County Gun Club a few years ago, on a soggy damp morning in Bay Two.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think this was a classifier stage. A very simple one, at that.
The shooting problem was to knock down six mixed steel (Pepper Poppers and U.S. poppers), reload, then knock down six more.
Norm The Ungrateful was up, and we were primed for a six-second run, maybe seven seconds, max. And he had it going in, but he fired the first four shots ... and got a jam!
While Norm was fiddling with his pistol, trying to clear the jam as quickly as possible, the fifth popper just ... fell down.
It may have been a matter of habit; when Norm shoots, the steel falls like tenpins. Norm would probably be inclined to think he had knocked down the first four poppers so solidly that it set up a tremor in the earth. Or else, he just intimidated it down.
Whatever the reason, he was saved a shot (which shaved something like a quarter, perhaps a third of a second, off his stage time, which was a total of 11 seconds rather than the expected six seconds).
When he completed clearing the jam, he just knocked down the sixth popper, reloaded, and knocked down the last six. I'm not even certain that he realized, at the time, that one steel had sacrificed itself in a paroxysm of terror.
What amazes me now is that I have apparently never thought to post it here.
The thing is, we were all in such jaw-dropping awe that the Range Officer just recorded the time and score and let him walk away from what would normally be a "Range Equipment Failure".
We all knew he was going to win the match anyway, and it was only a Club Match. At least, that's what we told our private selves.
The truth was, we weren't entirely certain that this wasn't the way he had planned to shoot the stage.
[YouTube Link here]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)