The View From North Central Idaho

Last Thursday I reported the ATF responded well to my request for clearance for Boomershoot staff and gun bloggers to handle explosives at Boomershoot 2009. I have a quick update which is also positive.

The three people that had their clearances "Pending" on Thursday were all cleared by Friday.

Yesterday one of the people noticed there was a typo on his address in the clearance paperwork. I sent the ATF an email this morning informing them of the error and requesting clearances for two more people. About two hours later I received the following email:

Good morning Mr. Huffman –

I have made the correction for Mr. XXXXX and ask for a corrected print of his Letter of Clearance with the correct address. I will also get the 2 possessors added to your license.

Nice. And I sent him an email thanking him for his quick service too.

ATF still should be a convenience store instead of a regulatory agency and they still should get their wrist slapped (and others should be hanged) for some of the crap they pull. But just because someone has ATF on their business card doesn't necessarily mean they are Gestapo.

Eric Boehlert goes on a rampage about gun control and cites some references to support his position:

After a mentally ill student, Seung-Hui Cho, had made a mockery of Virginia's gun laws by falsifying his gun-store background check and killing 32 people with the guns he purchased illegally, CNN presented a debate in which an activist arguing that the United States needed to relax its gun-control laws was given equal time to an activist who urged that the country tighten its gun laws. The pro-gun advocate, who represented a radical minority in America, was put on the same footing as the gun-control advocate, whose views reflected the clear plurality of Americans, who have consistently called for stricter gun laws. That's how CNN chose to frame the debate in the immediate wake of the Virginia Tech massacre.

...

Left unreported in that kind of gun coverage is the fact that relaxing gun laws in the United States represents a radical, out-there idea that's supported by just a tiny fraction of Americans. Not even gun owners in America want to make the laws less restrictive. (Just 15 percent back the idea.)

What I find interesting is the first reference he cites says this:

Just about 4 in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with gun laws in the country, while half are satisfied.

The pressure to make gun laws stricter appears to be mitigated. Just slightly more than half of Americans support making laws covering firearms sales more strict, at its lowest point since 2002.

More than two in three Americans oppose the government completely outlawing the right to possess a handgun.

Nearly 6 in 10 of Americans now say the government should enforce current gun laws more strictly rather than passing new laws. This percentage is up this year, similar to levels previously measured in 2002.

The public has grown slightly more likely to say that having a gun in the home makes it a safer, rather than a less safe, place to be. The opposite was true previously from 2000 to 2004.

This has a completely different tone than Boehlert's rant. Boehlert had to really stretch to use it has justification for his conclusions.

In the use of his second reference he overlooks the fact that just 51% of the public thinks the laws should be made more strict versus 47% (2% have no opinion). And that 4 point difference is down from 14 points in the previous year and down from 60 points a few years before that! The trend is definitely in our favor.

And what does this guy think the "other side" of those in favor of more restrictive gun laws would be? Apparently he is of the opinion the two sides are "more gun control" and "no more gun control for a while". This is like trying to work out a compromise with your would-be rapist by asking him to wear a condom.

I'm of the opinion even the "pro-gun" position mentioned is not really "the other side". A public opinion poll, which didn't even ask the right question to find out how many people are on "the other side", can't possibly define it. I've explained the middle ground before and so won't do so again here. But suffice it to say Boehlert should be thrilled "the other side" chosen was as close to his viewpoint as it was. Had it really been "the other side" he would have had an aneurysm.

Mike contacted David Barna, chief of Public Affairs for the National Park Service.

He says the lead ban doesn't apply to visitors. Just the people who work at the park.

I'm with Mike. It's still troubling.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without.

Interest charges not only eat up a household budge, awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity.

Lazarus Long
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, page 30.
"The Notebooks..." was extracted from Robert A. Heinlein's book Time Enough for Love in which Long is the main character.
[Although this advice was intended for marriages between humans in a common household, probably including group marriages, it seems to me it applies to much larger groups as well. I'm thinking of our city, state, and Federal governments.--Joe]

The ATF started really harassing the model rocketry folks a few years back. Today they got their wrists slapped:

District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton for the District of Columbia today issued an order finding in favor of the Tripoli Rocketry Association and National Association of Rocketry vs. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The decision followed a status hearing this past Friday in Washington.

Walton’s order granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the plaintiffs TRA and NAR, denied the summary judgment motion of BATFE, and vacated the classification of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) as an explosive.

...

The parties came before the Court on March 13, 2009, for a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the administrative record presented to the Court, the applicable legal authority, the oral arguments presented by the parties, and for the reasons expressed by the Court at the hearing on the motion, the Court finds that the agency’s decision does not satisfy the standard for evaluating agency rulemaking because it was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Specifically, the defendant did not adequately explain why it came to the decision it did in light of contrary evidence in the administrative record submitted by the plaintiffs, which tended to show that APCP can burn at a rate lower than that which the defendant designated as the threshold, and “which, if true, . . . would require a change in [the] proposed rule.’” La. Fed. Land Bank Ass’n, FLCA v. Farm Credit Admin., 336 F.3d 1075, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see D&F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Public Citizen, Inc. v. F.A.A., 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (”‘[t]he requirement that agency action not be arbitrary or capricious includes a requirement that the agency adequately explain its result . . . .’”). Here, the agency’s shortcoming was its failure to articulate any rationale for finding that the relevant and significant evidence in the record that conflicted with its position was unpersuasive, which it seemingly out-of-hand dismissed merely because it was contrary to the agency’s ultimate conclusion.

I hope this is but one of many more to come in regards to both firearms and explosives. It's long past time they were told in no uncertain terms they must obey the law.

Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge.

Erwin Knoll
[Although I have observed this for myself on many occasions it was Kevin's post from yesterday which most recently reminded me of this.--Joe]

This Saturday, the 14th, my son's school trap shooting team hosted a trap meet.  Hosting means we show up at 07:30 instead of 09:00.  We shoveled snow while others set up the kitchen and got the coffee started, loaded the traps with targets, etc.  It also means we stay after to clean and pack things up.

Below; Our next door neighbor, Laura, busts a target.  She hadn't fired a shotgun in her life until just this winter when I helped out by hand-throwing targets for her.  Saturday she held her own quite well.  You can tell she's using a 20 gauge automatic, can't you?

Below; Your average Eastern Washington high school kids in their natural setting.

Below; Alex pops one off.  He hit 28 of 50 this time out.

Below; Robert Cray wrote a song about this. (I know those buildings look pretty close for being downrange of a shooting club.  It's the camera lens-- I'm ~30 yards behind the shooter using a long lens.  Those buildings are over 350 yards away.  The 7 1/2 shot pellets are gently raining down at that distance.

Below; One of the school vehicles in the parking lot.  Reach for the stars-- learn to shoot well.

This was the first time I'd watched an "Annie Oakley".  It looks really fun.  All the participants line up side-by-side at the farthest "handicap" line (farthest from the trap house from which the targets are launched).  They worked in groups of three.  The first shooter on the left calls for a target.  "Pull!"  If that shooter makes a hit, the next shooter to the right calls for a target.  If the one who called, "Pull!" misses, the shooter to the right takes a shot.  If that one is a hit, the primary shooter (the caller) is eliminated from the game.  If the second shooter misses, a third shooter takes a shot.  If that shot is a hit, the first two shooters are eliminated. If one shooter makes a hit, but the next shooter in that group of three fires anyway, that shooter, and anyone in that group who fired and missed, is eliminated.  This goes on, in groups of three, with each shooter on the line taking a chance on being the first of three, over and over until there's one shooter left, who of course wins the game.  I understand there is big money in some of these games, but this being a school event I think the big prize was ten dollars-- almost enough to cover half the day's ammo cost for the winner.

I got the following email this morning. My response follows:

From: tjif tjaf
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:36 AM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: need help

 

Hi

 

 

Do you know a way to blow up a house just enough so nobody can live in anymore.

I mean the exploision must be big enough so it creates a hole or crack in the wall.

 

Why? whell nobody is living in it for now but it is located in a extraordinary forest with
som very rare birds and they dont like the be disturbed. so now is the chance to get rid

of this builing before somebody buys it and want to live in it. i thought to put a propane tank
in the bassement but i don't know if it is enough or even explodes.

 

 

thanks

 

---

Uw e-mailcontact koos voor Hotmail en profiteert van een enorme opslagruimte! Maak ook een gratis Hotmail-account aan

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:47 PM
To: 'tjif tjaf'
Subject: RE: need help

 

I haven’t worked with propane tanks much. Maybe someone on the Belgium Explosive Ordinance team would know the answer.

 

I don’t have any contacts in Belgium but I have put some of my contacts in the U.S. (Susan and Crystal with the ATF) on the Bcc: line in hopes they know how to contact them for you.

 

-joe-

-----

Girls only. Guns are allowed though.

I posted about this guy once before. This probably will be the last time. This is just down the road from where I work. I have driven by there many times. Apparently a lot of the items were stolen:

A 65-year-old Spokane man pleaded guilty Thursday to having an arsenal of illegal military weapons and explosives in a Bellevue storage unit.

Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrested Ronald Struve in January after his cache of weapons -- which included dozens of machine guns and blocks of C-4 plastic explosives -- was discovered by a man who bought at auction the contents of the storage unit at 12863 Northup Way after the unit's rent went unpaid, according to a criminal complaint.

...

Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Woods declined to say what motive Struve had for collecting the weapons other than to note that Struve had said "he might have to use it some day."

Under terms of a plea agreement, Struve faces a sentence of 63 to 78 months in a federal prison.

Those among us who are afraid to be free will surrender their guns, their families, and their freedom to tyranny. Do not place your freedom or trust in their hands or depend on them to cover your six.

Michael Gaddy
January 5, 2008
Buy, Buy, Buy
[This reminds me of something Samuel Adams said.--Joe]

We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.

Milton Friedman
[It's true. But the people running the "system" refuse to see it that way.--Joe]

About a month ago when I posted about how stupid one anti-gun bigot was some people wondered if maybe it was a rhetorical question or a clever tactic.

There is more evidence to indicate that some of them really are that stupid:

The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun). In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders -- three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee -- or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign again demonstrates he just doesn't get it or again thinks he can fool most people. Yesterday he blogged about something the NRA said:

...Wayne LaPierre was over the top.

He explained to all of us in America that "the guys with the guns make the rules."

Most of us believe that in a democracy, the voters make the rules.

And how is it do you think you maintain your right to vote Paul? You apparently want to overlook The Battle of Athens for example. And then there are the little things like how German Jews, Russian farmers, and millions of others who lost their ability to vote and live in the past few decades when they didn't hold on to their guns.

Soap box, ballot box, jury box, and as a last resort the cartridge box.

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him -- that's where the money is.

Robespierr
[I'm pretty sure this was not the Robespierr. It's just some random quote I picked up a decade or more ago probably from a Usenet group or something that I thought was appropriate for today's economic situation.--Joe]

A week ago today I whined about the ATF being technically challenged as I was trying to get clearance for the Boomershoot staff (and some bloggers) to handle explosives.

Last night I got a call from daughter Kim saying I got a letter from them. "Open it up!" I said. She did and told me that all of the people I requested clearance on, except for three, were approved. Those three are pending and are allowed to handle explosives until I am told otherwise.

I am flabbergasted. That was awesome "service".

While I am of the opinion the ATF should be a convenience store rather than a regulatory agency I must admit they did their job well and without causing me pain once they actually got the paperwork in hand.

Thanks guys.

Last May Boomershoot donated two positions to the Friends of the NRA in King County (Seattle area). They thought they were going to have their dinner/auction before the end of April 2009 but that didn’t happen. The dinner/auction is now scheduled to be in May which is after the event. So they have put the two positions up for bid on eBay. Those positions are #41 in the main area and #51 on the berm.

You can see the view from the Main and Berm areas here:

http://entry.boomershoot.org/#Main
http://entry.boomershoot.org/#Berm

The entire proceeds go to Friends of the NRA to fund Youth Shooting programs and any amount above the fair market value ($150 for one person, $250 for two, $300 for three) is tax deductible.

Hurry, the auction ends in six and a half days.

The District and its supporters also err in extolling the supposed virtues of a world without guns, and condemning the vices of a world without gun regulations. In doing so, they set up a false set of choices. A world without guns is not an option, because hundreds of millions of guns are already in private hands and readily available across either the Virginia or Maryland borders; and even if all handguns in America magically vanished, criminals could still illegally saw off shotguns and rifles to produce concealable weapons that would be more lethal than most handguns. Thus, the District can only hope to dry up the supply of handguns for the law abiding, while criminal access to handguns remains virtually unlimited. It is against this real-world backdrop, and not against that of a utopian gun-free world, that the District’s position must be assessed.

Richard K. Willard
D.C. versus Heller
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent
[In light of the renewed calls for more gun control after the shootings in Alabama and Germany I thought this was appropriate.--Joe]

I've always thought there are some events that shouldn't get National TV coverage.

Jim Scoutten
March 7, 2009
Producer and host of Shooting USA
Boomershoot coverage?
H/T to Ry (via email as well as his blog), followed by Kevin (email and blog), Say Uncle, Robb (email and blog), Phil, and Sebastian.
[I am a little insulted. Boomershoot got positive coverage from Newsweek, KING 5 Evening Magazine (Seattle television show), Outside Magazine, and numerous other media outlets (that list is just a partial listing). If he doesn't think we are appropriate for national TV coverage he is mistaken. We can and have handled national media before and done quite well.

It just so happens another national TV show is planning to attend this year anyway. I also got a request for permission from a participant doing a video with smaller audience. Boomershoot should be well represented in the media this year. The gun blogger list of participants alone is impressive.

Like I said, I'm a little insulted but Scoutten is missing out more than Boomershoot by his decision.

Thanks for all the support guys but I don't really think it's necessary to do a Zumbo on him. He's not saying Boomershoot should be banned or anything. He just doesn't think it is something he wants to present to the public.

In his followup comment he says he doesn't want put anything "on TV that could alarm the anti-gunners". I disagree. I am of the opinion that alarming them over Boomershoot then making fools of them is the more appropriate tactic (ask me sometime in private how we have baited them but they failed to take the bait). But if he doesn't want to do that I don't see a reason to attack him over that judgment call.--Joe]

Sometimes, as with the "one gun a month" schemes, it is a little difficult to see the sneaky way the anti-gun owner bigots try to get universal gun registration. But with this one they only barely lower the profile:

Local Law "A" for 2009 would tightly regulate "in the interests of public safety" all ammunition sold in Albany County. Not just ammo for handguns, which already is closely monitored by state law, but all rifle and shotgun ammunition as well. Hunting and target shooting ammo, basically. Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, would have to show identification, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the ammo seller. The buyer would have to state his intent of use, and could be refused the purchase. The ammo seller, at the same time, would be required to keep records for 10 years.

Registration of guns and gun owners over the years has cost people billions of dollars (two billion in Canada alone in the last decade or so) and about 100 million innocent lives (in genocides from Africa to the Ukraine). The number of crimes solved through the use of gun and gun owner registries is asymptotically close to zero.

In Canada if you ask the gun grabbers how many crimes the police have solved through the use of the gun registry they will subtly change the subject and say, "The registry is used thousands of times each day." or some such thing. Yes, the registry get a thousands of hits each day by the police. But it just part of a standard query on a person. That doesn't mean it provided any useful data. And it certainly doesn't mean it helped solve a crime. John Lott spoke at the 2000 Gun Rights Policy Conference and told us that in Hawaii the police estimate they spend 50,000 hours per year of police time involved in registration efforts. Most of which is paperwork. Yet when you talk to the police they can't identify even one crime where this has helped. Guns are virtually never left at that crime scene. It's not in my notes but I recall Lott telling us that when pressed hard enough Canada can support the claim that there was one crime solved through the use the registry which has been, in one form or another, in use for decades.

So if a gun registration scheme has literally only a one in a million (or less) chance of solving a crime what do you think the real reason the gun grabbers keep pushing for registration? I can only think of four possible reasons:

1. They are ignorant
2. They are stupid
3. They are insane
4. They want to confiscate the guns

In regard to #1, they have been told again and again. Any ignorance on their part is incredibly willful.

In regards to #2, if they are smart enough to count votes they are smart enough to count crimes solved. It is not because they are that stupid.

In regards to #3, this might be true in some cases. They are so blinded by grief over the loss of a loved one that they are not thinking rationally. But this is not the case for the vast majority of gun grabbers.

In regards to #4, this is the only answer I can come up with that makes any sense. Those that want to register firearms and/or their owners so they can enable the elimination of gun ownership.

Molôn Labé.

From a reader submitted editorial:

But in Iowa, when a gun discussion was brought up, it referred to hunting and those scraggly guys wearing the camouflage and driving the rusted Ford pickup. Instead of hearing about which person got shot over the weekend, I was hearing something along the lines of “Boy, I ‘m going to gut that coon I shot on Sunday and hang it up in the garage!”

Great stereotype you got there buddy. Did you learn all about the validity of stereotypes while you were attending Klan orientation?

The Brady Campaign is a U.S. organization that supports both gun control and gun owners' rights.

Can anyone name just one gun control law the Brady Campaign opposed? Does the KKK support both n****r control and civil rights? How can this person think that is even possible?

If Obama is able to pass stricter gun laws, hunters will suffer and be at an uproar. If Obama doesn't change anything in regards to gun control, those grieving mothers and communities will be screaming in his ear, asking why he hasn't done anything about it.

The classic bolt action deer rifle and shotguns used for bird hunting are the furthest down on Obama's list and as a class of guns are probably the least used in crimes. I don't expect Obama will even hint at restricting them. Rifle ammo, maybe. But not the firearms.

Such ignorance! Why aren't they embarrassed to have their words seen or heard in public?