The View From North Central Idaho

Last Saturday daughter Kim, her husband Caleb, and I went to the Boomershoot site to deliver the last of the supplies (we still need a few thousand rubber bands but I'll wait on those) for Boomershoot 2010.

We only needed a couple more concrete blocks but I bought a bunch extra. It turned out we used all the extras and then some when I thought of a new project we could do while there.

Caleb finished up setting the steps down to the "well" in concrete. We had originally thought the hard dirt was sufficient footing but in the wet spring the steps became unsteady. This should fix the problem:

I soldered and taped the electrical connections to the new solar panel. Kim and Caleb put in the new screws that hold the panel to the side of the shed while I went and got the bulldozer.

Kim also folded several hundred more target boxes:

We now have 1595 boxes folded and ready for the event. All of our crates are full (except for one):

The plan is to fold another 500 or so after we use up targets on the Friday and Saturday evening High Intensity shoots.

I pointed out to Kim and Caleb where I had cleared some brush a few weeks ago to make a "parking area" and then later thought it would be better used as a tent site if I had only thought of it sooner. They thought the tent site was a great idea and Kim said she might even go out there camping "just for the fun of it". Caleb suggested a fire pit would be a good idea too. That was when I decided I didn't really have a choice anymore. I had to go get the cat and make the tent site.

The ground was incredibly dry. At times it was like working with flour (or as Caleb said, "Sifted potassium chlorate") and very dusty.

Kim and Caleb make a fire ring with nearby rocks in the area I had cleared which was the proper ATF specified distance from the explosives magazine:

I then thought of another thing we could do. I could make a toilet out of the extra concrete blocks we had! I dug a hole with the cat around the corner behind some trees and brush. Even down about four feet the ground was dry as a bone.

We will probably put up a tarp for better privacy when we have our entire Boomershoot crew or a private event out there. I plan to plant some trees or shrubs to make the tarp unnecessary.

We then stacked the concrete blocks into the proper shape:

We filled in around it and planted grass everywhere we had dug up the ground. I'm hoping we get some rain soon so the grass will get started a little bit this fall.

The other things we got done was that Caleb replace few broken stepping stones and added some more to our work area outside the shed and I winterized the pump and repaired the sabotage we blame on "The Dwarf" who lives nearby.

I wanted to call the simple toilet "Kimberly's Throne" but for some reason I was vetoed on that. She said I could build her a real throne if I wanted. But a "[deleted] cold concrete" toilet didn't cut it.

Note that L.A. gangs are notorious for rejecting diversity and multiculturalism, according to LAPD estimates. The most numerous gangs are Latino, with 22,309 non-diverse members, and blacks (Crips and Bloods), with 14,515 non-diverse members. Rumors that white, oriental and other gangs will be filing Title VII discrimination charges could not be confirmed at press time.

Alan Korwin
October 13, 2009
1,400 arrest 46
[If such a lawsuit were actually filed it would probably cause me to spontaneously break out into giggle fits for a month.--Joe]

No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets.

Edward Abbey
[I'm not so sure about the electromechanical gadgets but the other stuff strikes a nerve with me.

I'm reminded of this by the ammo sale restriction bill just signed into law in California. It's more than just irksome, but it isn't so dangerous or infuriating that it's worth starting a civil war over.--Joe]

John Fogh offers this advice from John Holschen:

Believing that the 5.56 “stopping power problem” is solved by a different bullet and/or cartridge is likely delusional in my opinion.

This statement doesn't stand on it's own because I'm pretty sure a 16" shell from the Missouri is an instantaneous (for all practical purposes) man stopper. Just the muzzle blast will kill. But that's the nit-picky engineer in me. And besides, Holschen qualifies it as referring to handheld firearms:

The stopping power “problem” is based on the misconception that there exists a hand-held firearm which can instantly terminate hostile behavior (reliably and repeatedly).

But the most interesting part to me was the conclusive evidence that:

...[A] BG was hit 12 times with an AR at a range of 9-12 yds.

• 10 rounds struck his torso producing fatal damage to his liver, spleen, heart and both lungs.
• 1 round struck his right femur fracturing same (and starting his fall toward the ground.)
• 1 round entered through his left eye and destroyed a significant portion of his brain (this was the last shot according to forensics but they noted the BG was already falling at the time this round hit him.)
• The shooting was captured on both video and (separate) audio recordings. The elapsed time from the LEO’s first shot to his 15th shot (total rounds fired) was just under 5 seconds.
• During those 5 seconds the BG continued to fight, firing 6 rounds from a .357 revolver.

The LEO fired three rounds per second and got 12 of his 15 shots on target and one of those was a head shot, all while being shot at by the bad guy. Impressive. Had he been shooting a .30 caliber rifle I doubt he could gotten near as many shots on target in that time frame. What this may mean is that in a similar event the .30 caliber rifleman would have put only two or three shots in the target and the BG stopped his attack in the same amount of time.

So which caliber has more "stopping power"? Remember, you can double the effectiveness of any bullet by putting another round through your target.

I often find that true wisdom comes from simple stories, and one of the great story tellers was the one called Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the writer known as Luke, Jesus was traveling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee on a journey to Jerusalem. He stopped in a village and told his listeners a story about a widow and an unjust judge.

He said that in a certain town there was once a judge who cared nothing for God or man. There was a widow in that same town who constantly came before the judge demanding justice against her opponent.

For a long time the judge refused to grant the widow justice. But in the end he said to himself, “True, I don't fear God or care about men, but this widow is so great a nuisance that I will see her righted before she wears me out with her persistence.”

In this simple story there is a great political lesson that is often easy to overlook. The persistent widow is a reminder to those who seek justice that we should never lose heart. We must continue to press on, and will be rewarded if we do so.

Michael Beard
October 12, 2009
Wear Them Out
[Good advice. The anti-gun bigots have nothing but hate and fear to sustain them. That is very draining. It saps their energy. It is depressing. It is lonely. It is a very anti-social mindset. They are very unhappy people.

Freedom loving people have a myriad of social outlets and rejoice in competitions. They acquire new skills. They learn about the mechanics and physics of simple but incredibly clever and precise machines that can propel small pieces of metal at Mach 3+ across distances that take you 10 minutes to walk and hit objects that are impossible to see at that distance with the naked eye. They hunt and bring food home to their families. Guns are part of the Olympics. What do the anti-gun people have to show to compete with the thousands of competitive events each year and the Gold, Silver, and Bronze metals that are recorded in the permanent history of mankind? Nothing but news releases that dance in the blood of innocents killed and maimed by criminals.

The People of the Gun know history is made with guns and love to learn that history. They know it is guns in the hands of everyday people that keep the would be tyrant from attempting to gain power and brutalize them, their family, and their neighbors because they happen to have the wrong skin color, the wrong religious beliefs, wear glasses, or own property. They know the gun is civilization and although it can and has been used for evil it is far more often used for the protection of innocent life and property against those that do not respect life or the property of others.

Because gun ownership is a positive thing it makes it easier for us to be persistent over the long haul. The Million Mom March was founded in August 1999, reached their peak in May of 2000 with, according to their own (probably inflated) numbers consisted of nearly one million people. Now they don't even have a website of their own -- http://www.millionmommarch.org/ redirects to the Brady Campaign. They were a flash in the pan because it's hard to hold onto hate for very long. The Brady Campaign is 35 years old but even after merging with the MMM have so few adherents they don't even bother to have a way to join their organization. They have nothing to offer prospective members except hate and fear. The NRA is 138 years old and has thousand of instructors, millions of members, a history of competitions, they helped blacks protect their communities in the darkest days of the KKK, they teach hunter safety, and helped Great Britain prepare for the expected invasion from Germany in WW II.

Make the most of that persistence. The other side frequently has an unfair advantage with the assistance of a duplicitous press and their own willingness to twist the truth and ignore the facts but our numbers, our love of people and freedom, and our righteousness give us the long term advantage. They made a big play for the win during the Clinton years and many or even most gun owner rights activists thought the bigots had won. But they ran out of steam and we are now winning.

Let's keep doing what we do best. For some people that will be a great gun blog, mocking those that hate freedom, playing the political game, teaching new shooters, teaching experienced shooters to be better than they ever thought was humanly possible, getting good press for gun owners, or it might be just being a proud and responsible gun owner who takes a new shooter to the range every once in a while.

Michael Beard is right that persistent is important and that characteristic will enable our eventual win. But I suspect it was some sort of Freudian slip that resulted in that recognition of his. Michael Beard is on the losing side of this epic struggle for freedom. He recognized the persistence of his opposition and envies it.--Joe]

Sometimes when your battles are going too well you have to wonder if there is an ambush being prepared. We won Heller, incorporation looks like a shoe-in, we (will soon) be able to take guns in National Parks, and the police, in some jurisdictions, can be sued if they even temporarily detain someone for openly carrying a gun. Except for Heller all of that occurred since "the most anti-gun administration in U.S. history" took power.

As thrilled as I am about all the progress we have been making it also makes me a little bit paranoid. Certainly the administration has lots of other high priority tasks facing it. The economy, the war, and the self-flagellation of advocating more government control of health care probably does distract from their campaign promise of attacking gun owners. And certainly a case could be made for incompetence for accomplishing anything other than getting elected. But could it be the administration have some clever, nefarious plan to make all our civil rights gains moot?

If so, it probably can't be through the legislature and the courts. It would have to be something like martial law, emergency powers, or possibly an international treaty. Such a treaty is being discussed again:

Seven countries have launched a campaign for the U.N. to start negotiations on a new treaty regulating the global arms trade to help prevent the illegal transfer of guns that kill and maim thousands every day.

...

According to a report published this week by the British relief agency Oxfam and 11 other non-governmental organizations, some 2.1 million people -- overwhelmingly civilians -- have died either directly or indirectly as a result of armed violence since the General Assembly first voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing, multibillion dollar arms trade.

This is the equivalent of more than 2,000 people dying every day -- worse than one person killed each minute, the report said.

"There is an overflow of government sponsored and private illegal armies, ethnic militias and non-state guerrilla forces," former U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland, who now heads the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, said in a forward to the report.

"And they are supplied as never before with lethal weapons by reckless states," Egeland said. "Only a forceful, unambiguous and verifiable convention can control transfers and do away with the networks of illegal arms brokers that supply our generation's weapons of mass killings and mass misery."

Duncan said that after three years of discussions, Britain, Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya have proposed a resolution establishing negotiations to draft and agree on a treaty.

The idea of a treaty "is still contentious," Duncan said. But supporters are hoping the disarmament committee will support the resolution and the 192-member General Assembly will approve the measure later this year. That would pave the way for negotiations leading up to an international conference in 2012 that would hopefully adopt the new treaty.

Last year, the assembly overwhelmingly endorsed a working group to move toward negotiations by a vote of 147-2, with the U.S. and Zimbabwe casting "no" votes. Others were either absent or abstained.

Whether President Barack Obama's administration will now back negotiations remains to be seen.

Gun control is a hotly contentious issue in the United States, where the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to "keep and bear arms," and powerful lobby groups routinely oppose almost every effort to restrict gun sales and ownership -- and usually win.

Supporters of a new treaty stress that it will not interfere with legal arms sales but will target illegal weapons transfers.

What these people apparently fail to consider is the number of people that are killed because of gun control. Even in their own numbers above they are including deaths by governments intent exterminating people because of racial and/or religious differences which could have been prevented had the oppressed been able to defend themselves.

Probably the biggest risk of the treaty to U.S. gun owners is such a treaty will almost certainly require that guns be registered so their movement can be carefully tracked. Registration must never be allowed. The risk is just too high. Remember my Jews In The Attic Test and just say no until you are out of ammo.

In reality, you either do or you do not advocate government control over the right to keep and bear arms, you either do or do not support the second amendment, and you either do or you do not advocate a nanny state-- you either do or do not embrace the principles of the Left. Any attempt to place yourself "in the middle" puts you in agreement with the basic principles (rationalizations) of those who would violate your and your neighbors’ rights.

Why can't we all just get along? Because some people want their liberty and others want to control everyone. Are you going to stand on the side of liberty or on the side of the aggressors? Pick one, or stay the hell out of the way.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
October 10, 2009
Comment on Quote of the day--John Hardin
[Actually I put myself "in the middle". But that is because Lyle is using a different definition of "the middle" than the one I use. In actuality a strict and literal interpretation of the Second Amendment is "the middle ground".--Joe]

I played the word substitution game in this opinion piece in hopes it communicates how my blood pressure rises when I read about repression of gun ownership:

A preview of the argument is made in a case making its way through the federal courts. It challenges the District of Columbia’s gun ni**er law, which was revised after the Supreme Court’s prior action. It allows handgun ni**er permits only for residents who intend to use the guns for self-defense at home allow them to visit in their homes. It still bans people from carrying guns ni**ers around the nation’s capital, where each year millions of tourists, schoolchildren, visiting officials and foreign dignitaries come to conduct business, immerse themselves in history or celebrate spring amid the splendor of cherry blossoms.

...

“They want to establish a constitutional right to take any gun ni**er, anywhere, at any time,” says Dennis Henigan, vice president of law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ni**er Violence. “They want to force that into every nook and cranny of American society.”

Many Americans were unnerved at the sight of gun-toting ni**er protesters at health care discussion forums and even outside of events where Obama was appearing in the summer. The cheerless truth is that the gun ni**er lobby, with the probable blessing of the Supreme Court, proudly promises more of the same.

Uh,huh. And no supporter of abortion should ever make a decision over abortion, or a supporter or illegal immigration should make a decision over amnesty for illegals, or a gay person should make a decision over gay issues, and on, and on...

Show us Mr. Henigan why the judge's judgment has been impaired and then we can talk. Until then your opinion smells of bigotry.

RWB
October 10, 2009
In response to Dennis Henigan saying, "I don't think gun dealers should be deciding the constitutionality of gun laws". From the comment section of the article Justice who wrote gun decision is a gun dealer.
[This comment wouldn't normally make the cut for my QOTD but the bigotry meme made me smile. It's the proper state of mind for dealing with the anti-gun people.--Joe]

Take a tactics class, do some scenario-based training, but don’t buy yet another gizmo expecting that it will somehow solve a problem better dealt with by behavior-based training.

Kevin Kerkam
October 8, 2009
Comment to Concealed Carry Identifiers
[This reminds me of when I first started working for Microsoft and participated in pistol shooting leagues. Almost everyone at MS that were in one of the leagues would get involved in on-line discussions about what gun and/or ammo would be best for the league. They had more money than time and tried to throw money at a training problem. I was shooting my Ruger P89 (see the web page of my activities at the time here). I shot in two and sometimes three league matches a week, practiced before every match, and took numerous classes. After a couple years the other guys were debating if they should buy another $2K gun and I had 30K rounds through my pistol and was winning most of the matches. I finally did buy the $2K STI when I was certain the pistol was holding me back.--Joe]

I received an email today from Dave Mason that I thought people might be interested in:

OPI is proud to announce the expansion of our Exploding Target line! In addition to the Rifle targets, we are now offering Rimfire, Pistol, and Exploding Clay Targets.

Our Rifle Targets are the 1 pound, and 2 pound targets everyone has come to appreciate as the ground shaking confirmation of a good shot.

Added to these traditional targets are the Rimfire and Pistol Targets. By popular demand, these targets will detonate when hit with something as small as a .22 CB round or even the fat, slow .45 round. These are available in a 10 pack, but MUST be mixed individually, on the range. These targets are $25.00 for 10 targets, shipping included to the lower 48 states.

We also have Exploding Clay Targets for the shotgun shooters out there. These targets attach to your clays and CANNOT BE USED with automatic launching equipment. You must use hand or spring launchers as you cannot stack the targets. These targets are also $25.00 for 10 targets, shipping included to the lower 48 states.

A word about our New Web-Site: The good news is that is has been completely revamped and looks amazing, including the long requested on-line shopping cart for convenience. The bad news is that it still has a few kinks and is a work in progress. Namely, a few of the pages are coming up, even on our home and business computers, with a security certificate error. There is not a security risk posed by the website, however, please feel free to contact us via e-mail at sales@ozarkpyro.com as alternative ordering method.

In the Research and Development department: Designed primarily for Patrick Flanigan (http://www.patrickflanigan.com) we are back working on explosive fireball and various colored explosions for Patrick’s shows. As soon as we can get these targets in a consumer friendly format, I’ll let you know so that you can buy them too!

Our next Thunder In The Hills was scheduled for 17 October 2009 but there is no way that we can pull it off as we are so busy at this point. We hope to have a spring shoot next year.

For business owners and entrepreneurs out there, join our growing list of distributors and purchase at wholesale prices for sales in your store and/or at gun shows. Please e-mail us for an information packet about what OPI can offer your business!

 

Sincerely,

Dave Mason
President
Ozark Pyrotechnics, Inc.
P.O. Box 118
Hartville, MO 65667-0118
417-741-1142
http://www.OzarkPyro.com
http://www.ThunderInTheHills.info

I've had lots and lots of request for "Shotgun Boomers" and I put a couple of days worth of effort into it without success. Dave apparently has it figured out and is offering them for sale. I can occasionally get a pistol to detonate the boomers but that usually requires that you be entertainingly close and I don't recommend that unless you fill out your nomination form for a Darwin award beforehand. And for rimfire detonation of our targets it requires a rifle, high velocity ammo, and close ranges.

I have this "thing" about encouraging people to learn precision long range shooting and just don't have that much interest in the shotgun and pistol side of things. The "clean up"/high-intensity events came about because it wasn't that much additional effort for me and so many people wanted to do it. I don't really "get it" like I do the long range stuff but if that gets you fired up then Dave's your man.

Please check the laws in your state/county before you decide to buy exploding targets. I would hate to have contributed to you having unexpected "quality time" with your local law enforcement officer. And please be very, very careful with them.

First they came for the machine guns, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who needs a machine gun to hunt with?

Then they came for the "assault weapons," and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700 and who needs an "assault weapon" to hunt with?

Then they came for the .50 caliber rifles, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who wants to hunt with a .50 caliber rifle anyway (apart from those black powder nuts)?

Then they came for the semiautomatic handguns, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who hunts with a pistol? (Though those big-bore hunting revolvers are kinda neat, in a sick way.)

Then they came for the rest of the semiautomatic rifles, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and anyone who needs more than one shot isn't a real hunter.

Then they came for the high-power sniper rifles; and even though my Remington 700 has a scope, and fires a round that will go through a car door, and I can hit the eye of an elk at 500 yards with it (not that I'm bragging or anything), the Second Amendment _says_ we can have guns for hunting, and I only use it one week a year for _hunting_.

But there was no one left to speak up for me, and they took it away.

John Hardin
November 14, 2008
The lament of the AHSA supporter
[I was reminded of this today when I was listening to Breda and Top of the Chain on Gun Nuts: Road show talking about going to GRPC and the discussion there about normalizing the ownership of "Evil Black Rifles".--Joe]

In just six months we have gained still more public support for regaining our civil rights:

According to Rasmussen, only 39 percent of Americans believe the country needs stricter gun laws. That’s down from 43 percent only six months ago.
Democrats still emerge as the party of gun control, with 65 percent of respondents claiming Democrat affiliation supporting tighter gun laws while 69 percent of identified Republicans and 62 percent of independents do not support more gun laws.

“It’s ironic that the Chicago case just went to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb noted, “while Rasmussen tells us that only 20 percent of adults believe city governments have a right to prevent citizens from owning handguns.”


Sixty-nine percent say city governments do not have that authority, and 11 percent were undecided, the poll disclosed.

“This suggests that those who support a handgun ban in Chicago are way out of the mainstream,” Gottlieb said. “Gun control is a losing proposition, for the public that wants to fight back against criminals, and especially for anti-gun politicians who cling to that failed philosophy as the nation leaves them behind.”

We cannot ease off. We must make these bigots as much outcasts as the KKK is today. Have the proper state of mind and keep up the fight.

This week I'll be doing my share by taking two people to the range tonight then some people from work are going to Idaho with me this weekend for a private Boomershoot party.

We’d like to retire that word [redistribute] from the political vocabulary because you can’t redistribute something that is already highly socialized, and wealth and income in the “era of knowledge-based growth” (whoever ends up “owning” it) is indeed highly socialized. Most importantly (and more to the point), individual productivity is increasingly dependent on what can only be described as a collective good, a common inheritance of knowledge. No one deserves to benefit from this common inheritance more than anyone else, by moral definition, because it’s not created by any individual. So, to the extent that inherited knowledge (“technical progress in the broadest sense,” as Solow termed it) is increasingly driving economic growth, the fruits of knowledge—the wealth being generated by knowledge—should be more equally shared. Wealth that is commonly created should be equally, or at least more equally, shared.

Lew Daly
Via AmericanMercenary in the post What the hell is "Social Justice"?
[This is very scary stuff. Strip away just a little bit of the fluff and it's, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Just reading the praise for the book you realize these people not only have zero respect for the right to own property but they don't believe you even have a right to your own thoughts. This is what inspires thoughts of Atlas Shrugged. In this book the people of the mind went on strike. Those that contributed through the power of their creative minds declared those that demanded the product of their minds through the force of government had received their last handout. You can force someone to work but you can't force them to think.

After reading of people like Daly I don't just long for a John Galt but a Ragnar Danneskjöld as well.--Joe]

From Time magazine:

National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.

Do you notice anything wrong with that?

Bad question. It would be easier to answer, "Do you notice anything right with that?" But I'll answer the harder question:

• It's not just or even primarily about a ban on handgun sales within the city limits. It a ban on possession within the city limits.
• D.C. v. Heller had nothing to do with automatic weapons -- unless you want to abide by D.C. definition of automatic weapon which included semi-autos.
• This was not the first time the SC acknowledged an individual right to bear arms. Check out U S v. Cruikshank which said "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Or even U S v. Miller which allowed Miller had standing. See also An individual right.

It is very, very rare that when I read an article in the MSM where I know a fair amount about the topic that I don't see substantial errors in the presentation of the material. I can only conclude the articles where I don't know all that much about the material are also filled with errors. Hence, I cannot trust the MSM to provide me facts. Facts are apparently irrelevant to them.

Kevin made a post about this in the last year or so with, IIRC, a fancy name. I only had about three hours of sleep last night and am much too tired and cranky to go looking for it. And I still have more work work to do tonight...

Just so we're all clear;

Such is the state of today's most critical issues: political rights versus "economic rights".  It's either or.  One destroys the other.  But there are, in fact, no "economic rights," no "collective rights," no "public-interest rights".  The term "individual rights" is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man's rights.

Ayn Rand - from the appendix "Man's Rights" in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

If you don't have a copy, get one.  The first copy I saw had every other sentence or paragraph highlighted by the owner.  It's that kind of book.  It was written back in the 1960s, though it seems to be directly addressing our current crop of idiots, moonbats, loons, thugs, bounders, cads, hucksters and charlatans in Washington (to say nothing of the Democrats).

The FTC has declared they are the ethics police for bloggers:

Certainly, it seems like this is an update that’s time has come. While most well-run social media programs already include appropriate disclosure, there’s still no shortage of unscrupulous marketers using deceptive practices to sell products. Now, with the threat of serious fines, those who look to push the boundaries of ethical blogging will be doing so at their own risk.

I wonder if those advocating more government regulation are required to disclose their voting history, tax filings, and political donations.

It's possible there are few lines of some of my prototype code that made it through to release. I'm not certain. Windows Mobile 7 will have significant input from me.

Here are the details:

AT&T today announced two new smartphones based on Microsoft Inc.'s new Windows Mobile 6.5 operating system, HTC's Tilt 2 and Pure (see images, below.)

AT&T didn't announce full details for all six new phones, but said the HTC Pure is now available at AT&T stores for $150 after rebates, and the HTC Tilt 2 will cost $300 after rebates. Both require a smartphone data plan commitment and a $40 or higher voice plan in order to receive the rebates.

6.5 is a big step in the right direction and 7.0 will be awesome.

So no matter how the incorporation debate shakes out, an endorsement of originalism would be a victory for conservatives who prize intellectual honesty in constitutional interpretation.

Seemingly aware of these implications, the Left is trying to preserve the contrivances of “substantive due process” in an originalist guise. They want to define “privileges” and “immunities” as broadly as possible, to include what Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center calls “very important progressive values,” such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage. The goal is to continue expanding “individual rights” while permitting restriction of property rights and economic freedoms.  So if the Supreme Court decides in McDonald’s favor, it could end the controversy over gun rights but begin a host of new battles in other areas.

Yet Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, is not afraid of opening a can of worms. He says that libertarians see McDonald as an opportunity “to resurrect economic liberties suspended by the Court under the post–New Deal version of substantive due process.” Conservatives should see this case as a rare opportunity to base any incorporation of the Bill of Rights on originalist grounds — an opportunity they should waste no time in seizing, for it may not come again.

Will Haun
June 08, 2009
[I find it very interesting that the phrase "conservatives who prize intellectual honesty" is used. What does this mean? Does it mean that most conservatives are not "intellectually honest" but liberals are? Or does it mean that no liberal can be considered "intellectually honest" but some conservatives are?

Regardless, there are those that have high hopes for the Chicago Gun Case to get us started on the path to liberty again. I admit to seeing a glimmer of that possibility but know that economic liberty is going to be a much tougher war than guns are and don't have very high hopes. Even if the current system suffers a complete meltdown (and there are lots of indications that it will) there will still be strong resistance to liberty from those that will claim the collapse justifies even less freedom and a much great role for goverment to take in implementing a "planned economy" than it already has.

H/T to ubu52 for the link.--Joe]

My blog has been getting new comment spam at the rate of about one every 15 seconds for several hours. I've enable Captcha for Comments which might have bugs in it which make leaving valid comments problematic.

Sorry about that.

Daughter Kim and her husband Caleb took friend Amber to the range last Monday. It was the first time Amber had ever shot a gun.

They borrowed my Ruger Mark II and all the reports indicate Amber enjoyed herself and did well:

Welcome to the community Amber.

And thank you Kim and Caleb for making her introduction to shooting enjoyable.

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned a handgun ban here in the federal enclave of Washington and ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership (the justices did leave room for firearms regulation, saying government could prohibit guns in "sensitive places" and forbid ownership by certain dangerous people, such as felons). But the court did not say whether the Second Amendment also applies to the states.

...

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept the Chicago case for consideration will be a key one and have a significant effect on gun-related litigation across the country.

Mike Beard
President
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
September 28, 2009
Does it Apply?
[Contrary to what fellow bigot Paul Helmke thinks Beard agrees with most pro-gun people in that the Chicago Gun Case is a big deal. We have a lot of work ahead of us. To continue my previous analogy just after the Heller decision we have liberated Paris from Germany and still have fierce resistance to overcome before we can win the war.--Joe]

Via following a Sitemeter referral (someone at the FBI was looking for answers and ended up on my blog) I discovered The California Criminalistics Institute did a study on obtaining forensic evidence from cartridge casings before and after firing. The conclusions were:

Likelihood of obtaining useable fingerprints on c. cases:

Not likely.

If you eliminate bloody prints from consideration, then only 3/32 [9%] cartridge cases displayed useable prints.

No useable prints were obtained on the cartridge cases that had been fired.

...

If you eliminate bloody prints from consideration, then no DNA profiles were obtained.

I'm not sure that it's of any use to me but I found it fascinating.

The Supreme Court prefers to work in "baby steps," changing the law slowly. The Heller case was a very carefully and cautiously crafted to open the door to further Second Amendment jurisprudence. Had they attempted to overturn 20,000 gun laws all at once, all nine Justices would have run out of the courtroom with their robes pulled up over their heads, screaming. Step one was Heller, to get the SCOTUS to acknowledge that the Second Amendment was written to reaffirm and protect the right of the INDIVIDUAL citizen to keep (not necessarily bear) arms for personal defense, inside the federal enclave known as the District of Columbia, where there is no state constitution, just the US Constitution..

Step two (McDonald) is to extend that acknowledgment to the states. Why McDonald?" Because the Chicago handgun ban is a duplicate of the DC ban. If the DC ban is unconstitutional, so must the Chicago ban be. But Chicago is part of a state, not a federal enclave.

Once that occurs, we start knocking down the "house" of gun control laws, one brick at a time.

Heller is the alpha. not the omega. We're decades away from that. But we're working on it. We didn't get to the point of 20,000 gun control laws all at once, and we're not going to get free of them all at once. It ain't a "once and for all" system, much as we might like to see it that way.

Joe Waldron
October 1, 2009
Re: Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Chicago gun ban
wa-ccw: Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
[People who are pessimistic (see also here) about the status our gun laws have forgotten or weren't of an age to be aware of how things were in the mid 1990s (see here, here, here, and here for some clues). Those were very, very dark days. The turning point may have been the 1994 congressional elections with the anger over the 1994 "assault weapon ban" playing a big role (I find it very interesting that the Wikipedia articles on this and Tom Foley don't mention this) or perhaps here.--Joe]

Currently the poll stands at:

Vote: Should Chicago's gun ban continue?

Are you in favor of Chicago's gun restrictions?

• Yes (1887 responses) 17.6%

• No (8823 responses) 82.4%

10710 total responses
(Results not scientific)

Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because He’s Openly Carrying a Handgun.

Eugene Volokh
October 1, 2009
[Wow! There's going to be a lot more open carrying. We just won another major battle.

The Brady Campaign is going to be needing to hire extra janitors to mop up the river of tears as they sob themselves into a stupor today.--Joe]

In an email alert today the Second Amendment Foundation announced:

GUN GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT TO VALIDATE MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined with the Montana Shooting Sports Association in a federal lawsuit filed in Missoula to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which takes effect today, Oct. 1, 2009.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” It relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to exempt Montana-made and retained firearms, accessories and ammunition from federal regulation. Marbut’s group advises Montana citizens not to manufacture an MFFA-covered item until MSSA is upheld in court.

Earlier this year, Tennessee passed similar legislation and lawmakers in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MSSA clone legislation, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. It can be found at mtssa.org.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

See also the article in the Missoulian.

I wish them well and figure it will be at least worth buying some popcorn and cold drinks for watching the comedy.