Friday, November 30, 2007
I'll get back to posting as soon as I'm back in the land of the living.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Click here to read the article and click here to sign the petition.
"John Browning Day
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, November 12, 2007
It is difficult to decide just what the greatest achievement of John Moses Browning was. Some may say it was the 128 different patents issued to him in less than half a century, which resulted in the production of over 80 distinctly different firearms. Other may say it was the fact that his guns ranged from those hurling a .22 short to those hurling a 37 mm projectile. Still others may say it was his willingness to change – from lever actions, to pump actions, to semi automatic actions, to automatic actions.
But I disagree with all of the above. I believe that John Browning’s greatest achievement is the example he set for all Americans with his work input not his work output. Indeed, he showed us that we can only be set free through hard work, a love of country over self, and a refusal to take credit for the achievements of others.
I think the time has come for us to acknowledge formally the man who helped us win two world wars and save countless lives with his inventions. In the process, we may begin to see that our greatest civil rights struggle is really a battle against the unholy trinity of complacency, selfishness, and economic entitlement."
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Here are a couple videos I took at the match. I'm not in these but I thought people would find them interesting.
In this first one, John Goss is in the foreground with Jim Breen on the other side with Jeffersonian officiating. They are each shooting .22's with red dot's.
Here we see Jeffersonian taking on Jim Breen for the overall match winner. The best two out of three wins. Jeffersonian is shooting his GP100 in .357 Mag while Jim is shooting a .22 again.
I was also going to sight in my SKS with the donated red dot after the match today, but the honest truth is I was so cold at that point that I chickened out and came home. I'll try and get it sighted in asap though. When I do I'll be sure and take some pictures!
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
UPDATE: Moments after I posted this, the Brady's sent me an email wanting more money. They're clearly worried about this case and the effect it will have on gun bans and gun control laws nationwide. Follow me in giving a donation to your favorite gun rights organization!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; 1:08 PM
The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years.
The court's decision could have broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country, and will raise a hotly contested political issue just in time for the 2008 elections.The court will hear the case after the first of the year. A decision likely would come before it adjourns at the end of June.
For years, legal scholars, historians and grammarians have debated the meaning of the amendment because of its enigmatic wording and odd punctuation:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun rights proponents say the words guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms. Gun-control supporters say it conveys only a civic or "collective" right to own guns as part of service in an organized military organization.
The court's last examination of the amendment was in 1939, when it ruled in United States v. Miller that a sawed-off shotgun transported across state lines by a bootlegger was not what the amendment's authors had in mind when they were protecting arms needed for military service.
Since then, almost all of the nation's courts of appeal have read the ruling to mean the amendment conveys only a collective right to gun ownership. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit broke ranks last spring, becoming the first to strike down a gun-control law on Second Amendment grounds.
A panel of three Republican-appointed judges voted 2-1 that the amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."
The District law, enacted in 1976, soon after the city won home rule, is one of the toughest in the nation. It prohibits residents from registering and possessing handguns in almost all circumstances. The District also requires that rifles and other long guns kept in the home be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with trigger locks. The court struck down that law as well, saying it rendered the right to possess such a weapon for self-defense virtually useless.
It is unusual that both the losing party and the winners of that decision asked the court to consider the case. But Robert A. Levy, a wealthy entrepreneur and lawyer who is also a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, has worked for years to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
He and others, including co-counsel Clark M. Neily III and Alan Gura, assembled six D.C. residents to challenge the District ban. Their idea was to present the courts with law-abiding plaintiffs who wanted the weapons for self-defense rather than people appealing criminal convictions for possessing weapons.
A federal district judge ruled against the residents, but the appeals court overturned that decision in a strongly worded opinion written by conservative Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman.
The District argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that the decision "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
The petition filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer said the appeals court was wrong for three reasons: because it recognized an individual rather than collective right; because the Second Amendment serves as a restriction only on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights; and because the District is within its rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun.
"It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun," said the petition. "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die." (There's irony for ya! -Yuri)
Monday, November 19, 2007
In the meantime, may I suggest some of the many blogs I've linked to for you reading pleasure?
I'll be back as soon as I can, I promise!
Sunday, November 18, 2007
...and why again am I supposed to trust the government?
Aside from eyewitness testimony, some of the most believable evidence presented in criminal cases in the United States comes from the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Va. Part of its job is to test and analyze everything from ballistics to DNA for state and local prosecutors around the country, introducing scientific credibility to often murky cases.
But a six-month investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post shows that there are hundreds of defendants imprisoned around the country who were convicted with the help of a now discredited forensic tool, and that the FBI never notified them, their lawyers, or the courts, that the their cases may have been affected by faulty testimony.
The science, called bullet lead analysis, was used by the FBI for 40 years in thousands of cases, and some of the people it helped put in jail may be innocent.
We got there just after 9AM and got signed and holstered up for the match. I was shooter 10 out of 11, so I got to observe the other shooters prior to my time on the firing line.
For this match I used the same 9 gn Blue Dot, Federal MSPP and 158 gn Hornady LRN bullet load I used previous. Oddly, this time I didn't notice the recoil and no blister was rubbed in my thumb. Weird.
My favorite and best round, was the last one, where the shooter is seated with his hands on his knees, with a loaded pistol on the "table" in front of him. At the beep, the shooter picks up the pistol and knocks over the four pins on the platform in front of him, reloads, and with the strong hand only, shoots the pin on the ground as the stop pin. Failure to follow this leads to a :03 penalty.
If you have a chance to shoot bowling pins, I recommend you give it a try!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Thanks to Say Uncle.
MIAMI - Prosecutors have dropped the case against a TV reporter who was arrested carrying a loaded gun near a high school while working on a story on school violence, authorities said Tuesday.
Jeffrey Weinsier of WPLG, an ABC network affiliate, was arrested last month after police said he carried a weapon onto the grounds of Miami Central High School and refused to cross the street when asked by an officer.
A cameraman caught the encounter on videotape, which the state attorney's office used in deciding not to pursue the charges, Assistant State Attorney Maggie Gerson wrote in a memo released Tuesday.
Weinsier had been charged with armed trespass on school property, possession of a weapon, violation of carrying a concealed weapon and resisting arrest without violence. But he was not on school grounds when police approached him and ordered him to leave, Gerson said.
"Since the defendant was not trespassing, anything that was found on the defendant after he was arrested will be suppressed as a matter of law," Gerson wrote.
Weinsier's actions did not appear disruptive and students had been dismissed from classes when he was arrested, Gerson said.
The reporter began carrying a gun after he received death threats stemming from a series he did about unsanitary conditions at restaurants, according to the station. Weinsier has a concealed weapons permit, police had said.
"From day one, I knew that I had been on the public sidewalk outside the school," Weinsier said Tuesday. "I knew the law clearly. This is false arrest."
The reporter said he has filed a formal complaint with the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department and is considering legal action.
WPLG is owned by The Washington Post Co.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
At this point he goes all weepy that he "killed" the target, drops the gun and curls up in the fetal position on the floor.
Shortly after, one of the three roommates gets the other to support a candidate who's against guns and shooting people.
It was at this point I turned it off.
Damn! It's not like I expected anything different, but this was so blatant!
Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest.
On the "flip side" of states� laws, we have California! As you know, we let all of our DOJ listings lapse several years ago. We also stopped selling to CA law enforcement agencies in the same time frame. We did, however, continue selling to individual officers, who could get their agency to approve, for (IPSC, IDPA, etc.) sporting purposes. Now we have more even MORE onerous restrictions on the general populace? No more! We�re sorry! We�re done! No guns! Nobody! �Nuff said!
Thanks to Larry Correia for the tip.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Since I am actually from the west I find this vaguely reassuring. I guess I really do belong! ;-)
|What American accent do you have? (Best version so far)|
Western is kind of neutral, but not quite since it's still possible to tell where you're from. So you might not actually be from the West (but you probably are). If you really want to sound "neutral," learn how to say "stock" and "stalk" differently.
|Click Here to Take This Quiz|
Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Judge rules teacher cannot bring gun to school
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - An English teacher in Southern Oregon has no right to take her semiautomatic handgun onto school grounds, a judge said Friday in a ruling that may clarify a possible conflict between school policy and state law on concealed weapons.
Shirley Katz claimed she had a right to carry a handgun, as a defense against intruders or her former husband, despite Medford School District policy against teachers carrying weapons.
Her attorney, James Leuenberger, argued that only the Legislature, not local governments, can regulate firearms under state law.
But Jackson County Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold ruled Friday that an ordinance is different from a school district employment policy for its teachers.
"The district has the right to enforce its policy," Arnold wrote to conclude his nine-page ruling.
State law does not prohibit carrying a gun in school if the owner has a concealed weapon permit issued by a county sheriff.
But the Medford School District has a policy that prohibits employees from carrying firearms. Teachers or staff could face disciplinary action or be fired for violating the policy.
Tim Gerking, the school district's lawyer, welcomed the ruling.
"Allowing staff to carry weapons into school buildings wouldn't enhance safety, it would only make it worse," Gerking said. "We'd have a completely new risk of accidental injuries as a result of these weapons."
Leuenberger said he planned to appeal.
"I think the judge obviously is wrong," Leuenberger said. "To make a big difference between a policy and an ordinance makes no sense. This is just an antigun decision."
Katz has said she obtained the Glock 9mm handgun - favored by many police departments - to protect herself against alleged threats from her ex-husband during their divorce in 2004. The ex-husband has denied the allegations, but a judge granted a restraining order against him that since has expired.
Arnold noted in his ruling that Katz's "personal problems are not a factor in deciding this case" and that, "likewise, the wisdom of the district's policy is not a factor ... the issue before this court is whether or not the state statute prohibits the district from having its policy ... ."
Most Oregon school districts have policies against guns on school grounds.
A spokeswoman for state school Superintendent Susan Castillo said Oregon Department of Education officials had not seen the ruling and could not comment.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Oh, I got around to modifying my reloading setup the other day. I got a piece of scrap plywood from Home Depot and some assorted mounting hardware and this is what I came up with.
What do you think? The powder measure, reloading press and case trimmer are all mounted to the plywood with bolts from the back side, the heads mounted flush, and the whole mess can be clamped to the counter top and then removed as needed. I had been clamping just the press to the counter top before, but that has proved to be unsatisfactory. Now, with four clamps along two sides of the plywood, I have a secure enough platform I can operate the press with no worries of ripping the decorative molding off the edge of the counter. Also, under the reloading press, there is a small hole cut out of the wood that roughly matches the interior recess to aid in removing spent primers, since they collect in the body of the press.
BTW, that brass you see is .303 British rifle brass and the die currently in the press is the decapping/resizing die for the same caliber.
Monday, November 5, 2007
I started off with my 10/22 and as expected, I was putting them in a 2" circle at 100 yards. Okay, no sweat... Then I broke out my Mosin Nagant M91/30, quite possibly the worlds longest rifle when the bayonet is attached. OUCH! I have shot this rifle before without a recoil pad, but it's been a while since I did and my shoulder is still aching!
I put three rounds down range and check my spotting scope. S&%#! I was hitting about 8" high and to the right (1 o'clock), this with new WOLF production and Polish surplus ammo (yes, my rear sight was on 1). Several rounds later, and holding off at about 7 o'clock, I was still not reliably hitting the black. It was at this time that Jeffersonian offered to let me use his VZ 24 in the match, with him shooting his Garand. I shot the last of his practice rounds through the VZ and managed to turn in some respectable hits at 100 & 200 yards. So it was settled, I will be shooting the VZ in the match this Saturday.
This is the first time I've shot in a match of this type, with both prone and standing shots taken under timed conditions. I'm using my M91/30 to practice with at home, and I'm already doing pretty good at getting into the position and working on cycling the bolt, though the Mauser's bolt is much better. Not to mention the trigger and sights. Jeffersonian has a Timney trigger and a Mojo rear sight on the VZ and they flat out rock! I'm going to have to get a Mojo for my Mosin and see what I can do about the trigger. As with most Mosin's, my trigger sucks!
Well, wish me luck!
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
So, anti's, do you want to have another debate over the meaning of "A well-regulated militia"?
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The sensitive might want to avert their eyes...
By. Dr. Michael Brown
Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the maximum impact on this shameful problem.
The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like "automatic," "semi-automatic," "large caliber," "deadly," "high powered," or "powerful". Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than two guns should be called an "arsenal".
Try to include the term "assault weapon" if at all possible. This can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of the latest buzz words like "junk guns," "Saturday Night Specials," and "the criminal’s weapon of choice".
Don’t worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don’t count. The emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions than through logic.
Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing "automatic" weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when reading any crime story.
Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat offender, simply use the term "gunman". This helps the public associate all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns.
Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called "gunmen".
Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as "the gun lobby". If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying efforts as "arm twisting" or "threats".
Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called "gun nuts" if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don’t use the word "hunt". Always say that they "kill" animals.
Don’t be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even though we don’t portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light.
Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or suppressed.
Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to protect their families, you are not doing your job.
Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material.
View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include emotional quotes from the victim’s family if possible. If they are not available, the perpetrator’s family will do nicely. The quote must blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others.
Your story should include terms like "tragic" or "preventable" and mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave.
Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now of equal importance.
Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do something "for the children". Anti-gun spokespersons should be called "activists" or "advocates". If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, "according to gun lobbyist Jones."
Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that are easy to ignore.
Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means.
Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don’t worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for more helpful hints.
Professor Michael Brown
School of Journalism, Brady Chair
Vancouver College of Liberal Arts
Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced freely in its full and complete form. The author may be contacted at email@example.com
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Look, I'm not for terrorists getting access to guns and explosives, but this bill, if passed, will sidestep the Bill of Rights and allow anyone, added to this list, rightly or wrongly, to be denied their Constitutional rights without due process of law. This violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, which read:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Brady Bunch would be promulgating a law that violates the Constitution of The United States, but it still takes me back a little. I wonder how they would feel if the law was aimed at the first amendment instead? Something tells me they would be screaming to high heaven.
Not only is this dangerous, but people not on this list are already being affected by it. Take the case of the seven year old boy who was denied entry on a plane multiple times because his name just happened to be the same as a Pakistani man who had been deported. While I think he could have worn a better shirt...it still illustrates the fact of how this law could be misused, even by coincidence. Now imagine if certain people, classified as undesirables by the AG, with no oversight and answering to no one, were to be put on this list. How would they get off? How much would it cost? How would they even know until they were denied their second amendment rights for no reason?
This quote, attributed to Benjamin Franklin says it best:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Write your elected representatives and tell them not to support S. 1237/H.R. 2074. These bills are just another incremental step toward "Legislation, Registration, Confiscation" and need to be stopped, now.