The View From North Central Idaho

Brief is here. News release is here. Via blog post at Chicago Gun Case.

We are on a train to victory here.

Pennington blames the Ft. Hood deaths on the lack of a whole laundry list of gun laws--despite the fact that implementing every one of them would not have served to stop the killing.  The only thing that would have stopped it would have been less restrictive gun regulation.

Kurt Hofmann
November 16, 2009
The Brady Campaign for defenseless soldiers

The reason families need two incomes today is not to support themselves but to support the government.

Dick Armey
[You will see this is particularly relevent if you look at our current national debt.--Joe]

I've been pretty quiet on the big open carry debate that has finally cooled down some. I have open carried a few times and had a few things to say over the years but never took a really strong position:

• Coming out of the closet has it's price (December 18, 2004)
• Fish Or Man pulls the plug (December 29, 2004)
• Right to chose (October 20, 2008)
• The media can play nice (June 8, 2009)
• Open carry in Bellevue Washington (June 15, 2009)
• The move to a new bunker (July 1, 2009)
• The rest of the story (July 20, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds (August 19, 2009)
• Did we just win? (August 19, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Rick Perlstein (August 20, 2009)
• Hiking on Mount Hood (September 13, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Eugene Volokh (October 2, 2009)
• Open carry being used as a political statement (October 24, 2009)

I have done my blog research* on the topic and am finally ready to take a stand.

On the infighting between pro gun people on the topic I think, for the most part, it was a misunderstanding. If you read the words very literally (it's difficult for me to do otherwise but I'm not normal in a lot of ways) I don't find much disagreement in philosophy between the various camps. One side says it is legal, in most cases, as it should be but it's easy to do something stupid which will make us all look bad and distract from more important matters. Another side says we need to use it or lose it but don't be a dick about it. About the biggest real difference of opinion was that some said gun retention training might be a moral obligation and others said no it's not.**

I didn't read all the comments but I read enough that I'm pretty sure there isn't very much disagreement at the fundamental levels.

My biggest problem with the entire issue is the infighting. We have external enemies that need to be fought and energy is better expended on them than on people who are really our allies. Agreed, we need to make sure we fight productively and that we don't waste resources. And I think that is the crux of the matter.

How do we know what is the most effective expenditure of our resources? We can't really know for certain. We could run a bunch of experiments with different types of political campaigns. But you can't run an experiment in the same town on two different occasions with a different input variable because you changed the state of the population with the first run. If you run the experiment in two different towns you have the problem of the two different cultures and even individuals within those towns. What worked well in Virgina might very well turn out to be a disaster in nearby D.C. or Chicago. For the most part it's going to boil down to educated guesses and opinions as to which is the best.

We see people openly carrying and handling guns in a safe and lawful matter probably a 100 or 1000 times more often than the people we want to influence. That experience differential biases our opinions such that we probably have the least reliable opinion on the topic. The anti-gun people have an experience reference point that is closer to that of the population we wish to influence. They are more aware of potential fears and are in a better position to push the "fear buttons" than we are to assuage those fears.

Robb Allen demanded proof that open carry hurts our cause. Sebastian (in the comments) said he didn't think any focus groups had been done on the topic . That isn't true. I talked to someone that did a focus group study. I don't think the results are going to be released. That sort of data is relatively expensive to obtain and can be used by the anti-gun people to fine tune their attacks against us.

I don't have a lot of information on the study but the basic result was that people see openly carried guns as "deadly force" and threatening/fear-causing which makes it different than gays holding hands, interracial couples, or woman's bare ankles being visible. Sure, some people are fearful of gay cooties, Jews controlling the world, and their daughter dating a black guy. But it's pretty easy to point out the silliness of those types of fears. Openly carried guns are different. If they didn't have at least some real fear inducing properties they wouldn't be useful for self-defense and as a deterrent against attack. Apparently that fear inducing quality persists to some degree in most people even after repeated exposure with non-threatening people carrying the gun. It may not be rational but people are not rational. Expecting or insisting people be rational is irrational.

Obviously focus group studies weren't done in every political jurisdiction in the country. It may be that in some locations that is the best expenditure of resources. Virginia Citizens Defense League has had wonderful results. And it was in Virginia the one time I open carried in a public place with many people around for a couple hours.

So, it comes down to sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

This gets us to the question of how we might determine when it might work or how to best make it work. The following needs to be backed up with focus group studies but I think it probably is a pretty good start.

It is my hypothesis that certain conditions enhance the probability open carry will work as a political statement. Below is an enumeration, elaboration, and enhancement of the "don't be stupid" and "don't be a dick" suggestions put forth by others. Most of the following apply even if you are just carrying as you go about your everyday business. Whether you intend to or not, in the eyes of much of the public, you are representing all gun owners when you open carry.

• Open carry at a public demonstration the main topic should be gun rights. Guns at a health-care/abortion/taxes/etc. demonstration is likely to confuse the issue and allow the other side to spin it as intimidation
• Never allow quick to anger or violence prone people to be associated with your group
• Vulnerable looking women with children who open carry is better than large, scruffy, young men
• Save open carry for the "end game" in locations with well established gun rights rather than your "opening move" in hostile territories
• Small quiet groups with a mix of genders and races are better than large, noisy, homogeneous groups or loners with obscure and/or vaguely threatening signs
• Desensitization of highly sensitive people requires small levels of exposure--the butt of a gun casually exposed in an IWB holster is less fear inducing than a thigh holster or a rifle in hand
• Associate the open carry event with activities that give other people lots of "space"--road side litter pickup is not going to be as threatening as picketing a restaurant that prohibits guns on their premises, walking through an empty parking lot is not as threatening as a doing the same thing at a public meeting on a highly volatile issue
• High quality clothing and gear enhances your image and decreases the fear
• Consult with a lawyer prior to your event
• Never risk a "contempt of cop" charge--your interaction with them should be such they can "save face" during the public event
• You may tell the cops your lawyer is of the opinion the activity is legal but don't repeat it again and again--let your lawyer convince the judge to give the cops the lecture they so richly deserve
• Unless you have the full cooperation of your lawyer (such as if you are trying to get arrested) if the cops suggest it would be best for you to leave then politely collect their identifying information, exact words, and accept their invitation to go home without a pavement tasting party
• Physically cooperate with the police even if you know they are wrong
• As in all politically/media sensitive situations have a few experienced media people designated to represent your group--less experienced people should refer the media to the more experienced spokesmen

Even if you adhere to all of the above and more you still could mess up the politics. As much as I like to think of myself as an expert on gun rights I'm always amazed at how much I don't know when I talk to a true professional in the field. I strongly advise you to at least talk to your local gun rights organization to get their opinion on whatever great idea you have for "making a difference". If they are any good at their job they will be able to explain why something does or doesn't work and improve your approach.

Ultimately we want carry of all types completely legal and a non-issue in all jurisdictions. As long as it is done safely it should be a personal choice. I don't know of any gun rights activists who disagrees with that goal. It's simply a question of how or if we can get to that point.

We can attack the problem in a brute force manner or with a more sophisticated approach that arrives at the solution quicker and with less expenditure of resources. Let's not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation.

*Some of the blog posts and podcasts relevant to open carry which I have read:

• Say Uncle: Don't scare white people (April 26, 2007)
• Kim duToit: Open Carry (May 5, 2007)
• Jim: Open Carry in Texas (May 8, 2007)
• Sebastian: Pennsylvania Open Carry Blog (January 28, 2008)
• Sebastian: PSH in Virginia? (February 27, 2008)
• Sebastian: We’ll All Be Open Carrying Soon Enough (March 9, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Activism (May 12, 2008)
• Sebastian: VCDL Response (May 12, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Dinner Gone South (May 22, 2008)
• Sebastian: Thoughts on Dickson City (June 2, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Troubles in Wisconsin (June 5, 2008)
• Sebastian: Positive Article in LA Times on Open Carry (June 7, 2008)
• Sebastian: The Root of Reasoned Discourse^TM (June 9, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Juvenile? (June 22, 2008)
• Say Uncle: In your face (June 23, 2008)
• Sebastian: The Open Carry Thing (June 23, 2008)
• Alan: More on Open Carry in Texas (June 23, 2008)
• Caleb: State Activism (July 22, 2008)
• Sebastian: Context Again (September 26, 2008)
• Sebastian: We’re A Political Minority, Not a Racial Minority (September 26, 2008)
• Sebastian: More on Open Carry (September 29, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Loss in Court (October 7, 2008)
• Sebastian: How to Lose Friends and Influence People (October 10, 2008)
• Sebastian: Context Again (October 19, 2008)
• Sebastian: Something for Us to Avoid (November 14, 2008)
• Alan: It's Time For Open Carry In Texas (December 1, 2008)
• Alan: More on Open Carry in Texas (December 3, 2008)
• Alan: Texas Open Carry Radio Spots (December 4, 2008)
• Lawdog: Texas Open Carry of Handguns (December 7, 2008)
• Alan: Lawdog on Texas open carry (December 8, 2008)
• Caleb & Breda: Open Carry (January 6, 2009)
• Sebastian: Working Together (February 2, 2009)
• Alan: Texas Open Carry Bleg (February 12, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: More Open Carry (March 10, 2009)
• Sebastian: Take What You Can Get (March 15, 2009)
• Robb Allen: PSH – apparently it comes prepackaged with your welcome to college packet (April 3, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic (Also a very important paper for reasons other than open carry)
• Sebastian: Signaling and Carrying Firearms (April 7, 2009)
• Sebastian: Clarification on Concealed Carry (April 8, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Milwaukee Invites Lawsuits (April 22, 2009)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Issue in Pennsylvania (April 23, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Self defeating (June 5, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Open carry church event? Yup. Just a PR stunt (July 1, 2009)
• Kevin Baker: Open Carry ≠ Public Panic (August 8, 2009)
• Say Uncle: Open Carry (August 10, 2009)
• Robb Allen: As it should be (August 15, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: Guns and Tea Parties (August 18, 2009)
• Ahab: Gun Nuts Radio: Guns are f***ing cool (August 19, 2009)
• Linoge: first open-carry experience (October 17, 2009)
• Caleb: Man does not break the law (August 17, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Disagreements amongst us (August 19, 2009)
• Breda: Turn off your TV. Do it now. (August 19, 2009)
• Sebastian: Views From Around the Blogosphere (August 19, 2009)
• Tamara: Important Public Service Announcement: (August 20, 2009)
• Alan: On Open Carry and Morality (August 20, 2009)
• Alan, Labrat, Stingray, and TD: Vicious Circle 15 (August 20, 2009)
• Robb Allen: You will respect my AUTHORITAH!!! (Updated) (September 21, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: How To Lose Friends (October 1, 2009)
• Sebastian: Winning Hearts and Minds in Scranton (October 12, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Open carry is fine, so long as you don't do it where people can see you (October 12, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Who needs the Bradys (October 12, 2009)
• Eseell: Open Carry, Part the Whatever (October 12, 2009)
• Alan: Sebastian Zumbos Himself (October 12, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Whenever I Wonder If Anyone Reads My Shotgun News Columns... (October 13, 2009)
• Caleb: Controversy indeed (October 13, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: Top 5 Rifles (October 13, 2009)
• Tamara: Yay! Controversy! (October 13, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Linoge harms the Second Amendment cause (October 17, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Open Carry in Banks--Not Smart (October 19, 2009)
• Alan, pdb, UJ, Robb and Jason: Vicious Circle 25 – Open Carry (October 23, 2009)
• Alan: Open Carry and Free Riders (October 23, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Openly Carrying Guns Can Be Unwise, Even When It's Legal (October 25, 2009)
• Sebastain: Clayton Cramer Clarifies His Position (October 25, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Stupid is as stupid does (October 25, 2009)
• The Duck: Another Open Carry Discussion (October 26, 2009)
• Lyle @ UltiMAK: More on the Practical Application of Principles (October 26, 2009)
• Ride Fast: Open carry. good for the cause (October 26, 2009)
• Sebastian: Quote of the Day (October 27, 2009)
• Sebastian: A Strategy Toward Acceptance (October 27, 2009)
• Brent: The Sheeple Bleat in Fear (October 28, 2009)
• Linoge: self-aggrandizement (October 29, 2009)
• Linoge: quote of the day (October 29, 2009)
• CTONE: Open carry righteousness (October 30, 2009)
• pdb: Open carry fail (November 2, 2009)
• Ride Fast: Open carry normalization (November 3, 2009)

** I have taken Handgun Retention & Disarming and highly recommend it. But as open carry advocates have pointed out data indicating private citizens are at risk of having their gun snatched is non-existent. If nothing else the class will give you the skills to take a gun from someone that is threatening innocent life with it. Good guys seldom threaten in the same way as bad guys. Either you draw and shoot or you draw and the bad guy withdraws. Hence disarming training is probably more important than rentention training.

If you take such a class bring gloves to protect your hands and wrists. Bring lotion to lubricate and soothe roughed up skin.

ATF says E. Washington source of Mexico guns:

Agent Steve Foreman told a forum Thursday in Yakima that gun shows in Eastern Washington are the main problem because unlicensed dealers avoid making background checks on the buyers.

Foreman said the investigation into one drug cartel shootout in Tijuana traced 15 pistols and rifles back to the Tri-Cities.

Notice they didn't say the 15 guns were sold at gun shows. But they worded it in such a way that it leads one to believe that.

And 15 guns? What's your point? Most of the gun owners I know have more guns than that. I know a guy in the Tri-Cities that had that many guns stolen from his home.

Are they attempting to justify a law that will interfere with a specific enumerated right exercised by millions of people yet can be circumvented by stealing the guns found in just one home?

Go away and come back again when someone finds your brain for you.

Update: The complete story is here. I see nothing in the story to change my opinion stated above.

Sebastian points out the Washington Post reported yesterday:

A binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I just have to shake my head. These people just don't get it.

First off by announcing this they just further cemented the fact that "assault weapons" of the type banned in 1994 will become even more common in the U.S. The sales and backlog had almost returned to normal and now this is going to create a fresh round of buying. If it hadn't happened already the current administration, with their promises (so far unfulfilled) to ban "assault weapons" ensured they can never be banned. Why? Because in D.C. v. Heller the court decided the types of firearms protected are those "common use". See pages 2, 55, and 58 of the decision.

The types of guns in highest demand just after Obama was elected were those most likely to be banned. There are now many millions of those guns in the hands of ordinary people and there will be hundreds of thousands more before the politicians could ever get something through congress. And then the inevitable court challenge will almost have to conclude that the guns are in "common use" and therefore cannot be banned. Not only is Obama the greatest gun salesman this country has ever known but he also may have driven the last "coffin nail" into the pointless "assault weapon" bans making them forever a dead issue--except for repeal of the existing ones in the various states after the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Chicago Gun Case.

And the Brady Campaign endorsed Obama for President. How's that working out for you guys?

My second point is really the main issue. The problem is most people don't really understand the big picture. Mexico is being destroyed by the same type of stupidity. People are trying to interfere with the free market and this can't really be done. The free market can be pushed in different directions but it can't really be fully suppresed.

There is a large market for guns and recreational drugs. Governments can't really "ban" them. They can only raise the price. The price increase may include the risk of spending time in jail but the government passing a law making them illegal does not remove their existence from the planet or even the political jurisdiction of the government. When the price goes up it increases the profits. When the profit potential goes up more people are willing to risk going to jail in the process of getting a share of that profit. In the case of recreational drugs the profit is so great the people profiting from the drug trade has, essentially, brought down the Mexican government. I believe the only way order can be restored in Mexico is for recreational drugs to be made legal in both the U.S. and Mexico.

But people just don't get it. Somehow they believe something that mostly works on the scale of an individual home when you remove medicines from the reach of small children can work at the larger scale of an entire continent or even the planet. It doesn't and it can't. You can only increase the price.

Our country learned this in the 1920s with prohibition and we now raise the price on the dangerous recreational drug ethanol via a tax rather than attempting a ban. If the governments of the U.S. and Mexico really wanted to solve the problem that is bringing down the Mexican government and resulting in the deaths of thousands in the "drug wars" they could turn the drug trade into a huge source of tax revenue. Instead of spending billions on trying to raise the price via jail terms and attempted "interdiction" they could raise the price via a tax and bring in billions of dollars.

But I don't have any hope of a sudden attack of rationality striking people. Unjustified and demonstrably false faith in the power of government to successfully interfere with the free market has existed for hundreds of years and it's not going away anytime soon. Expecting people to be rational is irrational.

Never confuse motion with action.

Ben Franklin
[I believe many of the anti-gun people make this mistake. "We have to do something!" they say. No. We don't.

Even with a system optimally configured it's possible for something bad to happen. There are many, many trade-offs in life. We could reduce traffic fatalities to zero if we banned cars or made the speed limit 5 MPH. But the trade-off just isn't worth it.

And so it is with firearms. Even without a constitutional guarantee it would be wrong to remove the most effective defensive tool ever made from the hands of the people that might need them. Sure, make training easily available and affordable. Punish people who allow their dangerous objects (not just guns but gasoline, matches, and sharp knives) to get into the hands of small children or the mentally incompetent who hurt themselves or others.

But just because something bad happened doesn't mean that doing something won't make the totality of the situation worse or just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. You have to look at the downside of whatever action you demand to be taken instead of just the potential upside.--Joe]

Another book (here was the first) made mention of me. This time it's a little off topic from what I usually get attention for.

I donate blood frequently. So frequently in fact that in the spring of 2008 they told me for the first time I couldn't donate because my iron was too low. After numerous tests the doctor concluded the only thing wrong was that I was losing too much blood from donating. She recommended iron supplements and after a few months I was back on the couch with a needle in my arm again.

Last spring the Puget Sound Blood Bank announced that if you donated twice during the summer they would give you a free cookbook. Not just any cookbook but a cookbook with all the recipes contributed from staff, volunteers, and donors.

Last night when I donated another pint I picked up my "free" (in many contexts two pints of blood would be a rather high cost to pay) cookbook.

On pages 160 and 161 was the recipe I donated:

As I leaving a couple staff members overheard Barb and me talking finding the recipe and asked which recipe was mine. I told them the Lentil and Chocolate Chip cookie recipe. True to form they used the exact same word that everyone uses when they hear of them. Interesting.

This is in the news today:

Florida police say a man arrested for repeatedly calling 911 looking for sex claimed it was the only number he could dial after running out of cell phone minutes.

Tampa police said 29-year-old Joshua Basso made sexual comments to the 911 dispatcher and asked if he could come to her house. Investigators say she hung up, but he called back four more times.

A couple months ago I met a 911 dispatcher and she told me a similar story. But apparently in her dispatch center if things are a little slow they have fun with it instead arresting the guy. One day all the other dispatchers had spent time listening to one caller and suppressing their laughter while she was busy with a real call. After he called back for the sixth (or some such repeat) time she was given the call. Having been distracted by a real emergency she missed the suppressed laughter and chatter of her co-workers and didn't pick up on the fact that she was being sent some entertainment when they directed the call to her. She heard the heavy breathing and grunts and for a couple minutes thought it was someone unable talk and needed some sort of assistance. She coached him as she had been trained and tried get some sort of meaning from the grunts. He apparently got sufficient assistance from just hearing her voice to get his needs satisfied. This greatly amused her co-workers who silently listened in.

You have to be really desperate to use 911 as your sexual outlet of choice.

Doug Pennington who is the Assistant Director of Communications at the Brady Campaign writes:

[I]sn’t it ironic how some libertarians want government to stay out of their lives, yet have no problem with forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn?  The grocery store; the park; the school; the airport.  Apparently, we have the “freedom” to live with what these so-called libertarians tell us to live with.  After all, they have the guns, right?

I heard sort of argument in the context of concealed carry of guns at least 15 years ago. It was some radio talk show host in San Francisco who asked why she didn't have the right to walk down the street without people having guns hidden. I suspect this sort of argument resonates with a lot of people.

The thing is people use the same sort of argument with free speech and religious freedom. They ask why do we have to tolerate neo-Nazi's parading down the street? Or why do we have to tolerate atheists, Muslims, or Jews in our neighborhoods and schools?

If that doesn't bring my point home try using the argument to support segregation.

Governments don't force freedom on their citizens. Governments can only infringe freedoms of their subjects.

Wednesday night Barb and I had dinner with Mike Brown of the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance and his wife. His wife, a big Ayn Rand fan, encapsulated a point in a very compelling way. She said under a free, capitalist, system people are able to create their own little socialist or communist utopia societies and share according to need and take according to their abilities. Or they can give up all "evil" modern technology such as the Amish communities do. Free societies allow such communities to successfully co-exist just fine. If you can own property you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else or their property. The government still demands taxes but you don't have to tolerate other religions, free speech, or people with guns on your property. The same isn't true under a communist or totalitarian government.

But despite the clear problems of "government forcing freedom" there have been entire books written on the topic. Last year daughter Kim reported her economics class had The Shock Doctrine as required reading. One of the thesis's of the book is that advocates (such as certain people within the U.S. government) of Milton Friedman are forcing (including using torture) free market economics on people. Kim was pissed and had trouble reading the book because of the anger it invoked. How does a government "force a free market"? A free market is one free of government interference! Force is required to have anything other than a free market.

And so it is with "forcing free speech", "forcing religious tolerance", and "forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn". Pennington is telling us the true beliefs of his organization and the utopia they would like to create--freedom is slavery.

Update: I apparently got their attention. The post now has this tagged on to the end:

UPDATE: For readers referred from Joe Huffman, guns are not speech.

No one said it was free speech. But both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are specific enumerated rights protected from infringement by the Bill of Rights. Hence the comparison is valid. For the Brady Campaign to claim a freedom from other people bearing arms is the constitutional equivalent of claiming the freedom from the speech of others. Of course it's not the physical equivalent. But it is the legal equivalent.

Digressing a little bit I will admit that we probably will not ever have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public everywhere. If the Brady Campaign were to explicitly state it is only the carrying of concealed guns they get all uptight about but open carry is okay then I would be much more muted in my criticism of them. The carry of firearms in some form is probably going to be eventually upheld by the courts. Either the politicians have to make concealed carry permits "shall issue" and relatively quick and painless to obtain or they will have probably have to allow open carry without a permit. If some sort of carry for self defense in public is not allowed then the "bear" part of keep and bear arms will be infringed. I'm pretty sure the Brady people see that writing on the wall and are just dragging their feet or in denial.

After thinking about it for a long time and reading nearly all the blog posts and podcasts about the big open carry debate in the last few weeks I'm going to have my say on the topic soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Brady and company just contributed to my post on the topic.

In the Chicago Gun Case (McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago) the Brady Campaign has announced they will be filing a brief in support of neither party.

I'm anxious to find out what that means. As much as I like to think of them as spoiled children asking the nanny (government) to make the bad boys to go away (people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms) I don't think they are going to say anything close to "the case is irrelevent because Heller was decided incorrectly".

It appears that whatever their position we will find out sometime on or after November 23^rd.

It's been gnawing at me for days now and the way I figure is, those of you who value your imagined safety so much you'll choose fascism or communism over freedom are the ones who need gnawed at, not me.

...

You can claim Libertarians are "batshit crazy," but it's still better than death-camp pragmatism.

Roberta X.
November 12, 2009
Americanism
[I haven't verified this but I think there was something in the comments to other posts at Roberta's place which inspired the rant.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of quotable material comes about when someone gets fired up about something? Either that or she has the flu again.--Joe]

We've had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.--Joe]

Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.

William Penn
[Some people think our government is by the people and for the people. Recent events should dissuade you from this belief.--Joe]

A guy at work, Chet, frequently stops by my office to take a break and talk about, among other things, the state of our economy. Are we going to have hyper inflation? Deflation? Should savings be put into stocks, bonds, precious metals?

I bought a few ounces of gold and silver in the late 1990s and that turns out to have been a fairly good investment. But as Chet points out, "You can't eat it."

If being able to eat it were the sole criteria for sound investing then a few tons of lentils, peas, and wheat from the farm be a good idea but my bunker can only store so many sacks before it starts getting in the way. And I'm pretty sure some of the sacks of food I sold to people worried about Y2K in 1999 (about 20,000 pounds total) are still in their closets unopened except perhaps by rodents and insects. The food stores fairly well but unless you were very careful how you stored after ten years it has noticeably degraded.

Dave Hardy points out there is an alternative to gold that is useful (I don't recommend eating it however) and which has retained it's value every bit as well as gold has for the last 136 years. When I bought my first gun the guy I bought it from pointed out that guns in good repair don't loose significant value over the years. Even that SKS you bought for $65 back in the early 1990s kept pace with inflation. Ammo too has been a good investment.

So perhaps that is Chet's answer. Instead of precious metals like gold and silver invest in steel, copper, brass and lead with a little bit of nitrocellulose thrown in.

I was reading this article:

Caroline Cartwright, 48, claims that she is unable to stop the loud shouting and screaming she makes during lovemaking with her husband Steve.

After neighbours, the local postman and a woman taking her child to school complained about the noise, the Cartwrights were hit with a noise abatement notice.

However, when Mrs Cartwright was convicted of breaching the notice, magistrates made her subject of an anti-social behaviour order as well.

She appealed against her conviction for breaching the noise abatement notice and the making of the Asbo, which bans the couple from "shouting, screaming or vocalisation at such a level as to be a statutory nuisance".

Jobless Mrs Cartwright used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to argue she had a right to "respect for her private and family life". She also claimed that she could not help making the loud noise during sex with her husband.

The hearing at Newcastle Crown Court heard that the Cartwrights' nightly sex sessions at their home in Hall Road, Concord, Washington, Tyne and Wear, were making their neighbours lives' hell. Their lovemaking was described as "murder" and "unnatural" and drowned out their neighbours' televisions. Neighbours said the Cartwrights' sex sessions would usually start around midnight and last for two or three hours, every night of the week, the court heard.

Specialist equipment installed in a neighbour's flat by Sunderland City Council recorded noise levels of between 30 to 40 decibels, with the highest being 47 decibels.

Giving evidence, Mrs Cartwright said she was unable to control the noise she made during sex. "I did not understand why people asked me to be quiet because to me it is normal. I didn't understand where they were coming from," she said. "I have tried to minimise the situation by having sex in the morning - not at night - so the noise was not waking anybody. I may be sympathetic to it but it is not something I am doing on purpose."

Photo from the Telegraph

And I could not help but think that perhaps they are going about addressing the problem in the wrong way. What if they amplified the sound and put up posters of this article in the neighborhood? She can't help making all the noise because she is advertising her receptivity so why not take it to the natural (pun intended) conclusion?

Well, it amuses me anyway.

He was trying to place me in the middle of all these killings, so that when he finally took me out, the police would think I was just another sniper victim.

It might sound bizarre and far-fetched, but not if you knew John Muhammad. 

You have to remember that he was trained in psychological warfare in the army, and he was prepared to do anything to get what he wanted. 

That means all those innocent people were killed just because he was trying to kill me. I still have a hard time living with that. I constantly blank out of my mind the number of people who died in my name.

Mildred Muhammad
Wife of Washington sniper reveals the chilling reasons why her husband gunned down 13 strangers
[John Muhammad is scheduled to die by lethal injection today.--Joe]

What do you call a bunch of people, hated by our enemies, stuck in close quarters with no means of self defense?

Answer; "Fish in a barrel".

"Target Rich Environment" comes to mind also.  This in response to that perpetual blithering idiot, Paul Helmke.  I don't really even like talking about him, because in reality it's probably a complete waste of time.  That and he's getting, right here, far more attention than he deserves.  We should spend more time talking about good or interesting things, or ideas that can solve problems and he's none of the above.  Flies, ants, hornets, and mosquitoes, do tend to get one's attention though, even at the best of picnics.  If he can take credit for something, I suppose that's it-- being the annoying parasite at the gathering of minds.  Where's my fly swatter?

But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades—so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.“ And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
[My opinion is here on the Firearms Freedom Act as a gun rights tool. But I have to admit it has potential to further freedom on a broader scale. Because the recognition of the individual RKBA is so new case law is not that well developed. Because of that it may be possible to leverage FFA into something greater than what it appears on the face to be. I think it's a long shot but imagine if three fourths of the states passed such laws. At that point a constitutional amendment is within striking distance. Either an interesting Amendment (I'd like to see legislators who voted for a law or the president who signed a law that was later declared unconstitutional to be automatically convicted of treason) or secession.--Joe]

Two weeks ago I shot in a Steel Challenge match with the Lewiston Pistol Club. Nice match, nice people.

I shot both my Gun Blog 45 and my STI Eagle. Twice the fun for the same investment of time. But there were problems.

I had recently got my STI back from being worked on. While it was gone I had been using my Gun Blog 45 and had practiced with it enough that I seldom hit the bugs with the stupid LDA trigger.

With the STI back I shot it for practice and then tried to shoot both guns in the steel match.

About 10 or 20% of the time I used the Gun Blog 45 I would try and take the thumb safety off at the same time I was prepping the trigger after the draw. This resulted in the trigger going all the way to the rear without anything happening. It would take another 0.5 seconds (yes, I got the first shot times back from the R.O., I had a bimodal distribution of first shot times: ~1.5 and ~2.0 seconds). Other times when I was prepping the trigger for the next shot I would over prep and fire a shot prior to when I really wanted it to shoot. The long LDA trigger pull is tough for me to shoot rapidly.

Fine. I'm done with this gun. I'll clean and oil it and put it away. It's a nice memento of the Gun Blogger Summer Camp but I don't like shooting it.

The STI shot well but one of the brand new magazines I purchased after shooting a hole in a magazine last May, which worked fine before I had the gun worked on, would drop out of the gun on the first shot. The first time I thought it was because I hadn't seated it correctly or something. The second time I put the magazine away for later study. After the match I discovered that both of the new magazines would do that. One after just racking the slide. Okay. I'll need to look at this closely and figure out what is going wrong.

That night I cleaned the Gun Blog 45 and carefully packed it away. Figuring I would only get it out for teaching and new shooters that wanted to try a .45. I was done with it.

I then cleaned the STI and discovered the link from the barrel to the frame had a crack in it. I have fired about 300 rounds after getting it back from the factory and it has to go back to the shop for another repair. And that means I'm carrying the Gun Blog 45 for self-defense until I get the STI back.

I put 30K rounds through my $300 (in 1994) Ruger P-89 with only one trip to the factory for repair and it only misbehaved when I used non-factory magazines, crappy Egyptian military surplus ammo, or it was extremely dirty. The $2000 STI has had numerous repairs with about the same number of rounds through it and the Gun Blog 45 has the paint wearing off and the LDA trigger is a piece of crap.

Sometimes I hate my guns.

Two weeks ago I delivered a bunch of concrete blocks, mortar, and grass seed to the Boomershoot site. I didn't stay long enough to do anything with it because I wanted to shoot in a steel match that same day. I made the quick trip out there because I was afraid it would snow up or rain so much that it wouldn't be accessible until spring and I wanted the materials out there so I could walk (or snowshoe) in if I needed to and do any last minute prep work.

Today I drove back out and planted the last of the grass. It wouldn't have been disaster if I hadn't gotten the grass planted but it will be better that I did get it done. I would have liked to have done some work finishing off the semi-permanent toilet but I ended up spending time talking to my parents and brothers and then driving the 345 miles back to the Seattle area.

I'll probably go back out there in a couple weeks. Due to a huge office move at work I will have the entire Thanksgiving week off (extra, free, vacation!) so assuming the ground isn't knee deep in mud or waist deep in snow I will spend some of that time working on the site. But I have 2010 essential stuff done for this fall.