The View From North Central Idaho

Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners.

Jim Fotis
November 19, 2009
Law Enforcement Alliance of America Executive Director

You would be a fool to compete with Xenia.

Professor D.
November 16, 2009
Professor of Art History at the University of Idaho
This was to a student that got 87% on a test and whined to the prof that Xenia won a bet on who would get a better test grade. Xenia got a 112%.

A 34-year-old research scientist at the Bristol Initiative for Child Health recently announced that she is the (formally) anonymous blogger known as Belle de Jour --Diary of a London Call Girl.

To me the most interesting part of the revelation is the following:

Dr Magnanti, who studied anthropology and maths in Florida, was completing a PhD at Sheffield University's department of forensic pathology when she became a call girl.

Realizing she had no objection to having sex for money, she contacted an agency and worked as a prostitute from 2003 to late 2004, which she said was 'so much more enjoyable' than her shifts in another job as a computer programmer.

This reminds me of another woman I met at a party about four years ago. Let's call her 'N'. She was middle aged but very physically fit. After only a sentence or two you knew she was smart and not just an empty head on a pretty body. Talking about what kind of work we did it came out that she had been an engineer for many years, traveled all over the world for her job and finally got tired of it and quit. After a few months she started thinking about what kind of job she wanted to have. She was pretty sure she wanted a career change but wasn't sure what she would like to do and have the time and interest to go to school to get the required training. She was sitting in the park with a female friend of hers who finally asked, "If you could do anything you wanted for a living what would it be?" N answered, "I would like to get paid to f**k." And her friend answered, "So darling, why don't you? How do you think I worked my way through medical school?"

And so it came to be that N started her new and very profitable career without any formal training. She told me she had been doing it (pun intended) for a few years and was making more money than she ever imagined. She mostly lived alone although she had a steady lover that she spend most of her non-work nights with. She had a home in Bellevue Washington (generally an expensive part of the Seattle area) and was in the process of putting on a 10,000 square foot addition to the house. Part of it was her new "playroom".

She said she was 40 years old but she let slip the age of her parents and I didn't think anything of it until I saw the alarm in her eyes as she quickly added, "They became parents when they were much older than most." I did the math and didn't say anything but I then noticed the wrinkles in the hands and a few other places. I suspect her true age was really in the early fifties.

Out of curiosity, knowing full well that Barb wouldn't approve a budget item like that, I asked what sort of rates she charged. IIRC it was $400 for 90 minutes, $800 for four hours, or $1400 for the entire night. Weekend trips to exotic and interesting places would have discounts. She guaranteed she could be taken to company Christmas parties and the like and never embarrass you. Among other things she frequently did international travel with her clients as they traveled on business without their wives. She was very picky about her clients and never had more than about five or six at a time.

She painted a quite favorable picture of her new career and when I expressed my envy she told me she had a male friend trying to get into the business but most of the women were significantly overweight and wanted some sort of elaborate fantasy date that consumed nearly all of what they were willing to pay. Hence although he technically was paid to have sex he didn't make any money on it.

Another woman I know, let's call her "T', did some similar work for a while but had a different result. She was about 30 years old, very pretty, behind on her rent, and food was starting to become an issue. So she started putting on "girl-girl" shows for an old retired mobster with a lot of money. He apparently only had the capacity to watch rather than participate "in the action". T got something like $600 for an hour which she had to split with the "playmate" who was a friend of hers. Occasionally some guy would participate in the show with some simulated sex and would get paid some token amount.

T was quickly able to pay her back rent and put some food on the cupboards and decided to expand her clientèle. This ended up not being such a good idea.

She told a few married or attached men friends who had made passes at her that she was available for a price with confidentiality guaranteed. Some of them took her up on the deal and something unexpected happened. Once these men friends had paid for her services they treated her much different than they had before. They treated her like crap. The did not value her smarts and friendship anymore. It was about as friendly a transaction as one would have with a candy machine. After a few months she packed up her stuff and left the state.

I told N the story of T and asked if she had anything like that happen and she said no. Her clients were all gentlemen all the time. Perhaps it was because they knew she wouldn't stand for it. It was a sellers market for her product and it wasn't a problem to "fire a customer" and find a new one.

Life just isn't fair. Not only would I never be able to find high paying customers I'd be willing to service but Barb would be certain to find some reason why it wasn't a good idea no matter how much I enjoyed my new job.

The point of the exercise today is to show you that have never before seen some explosives at work.

Believe it or not, everything you saw on T.V.--not 100% correct.

Lt. David Woosley
November 2009
Bomb squad
Chattanooga Police Dept.
Video: ATF explosives demonstration
[Yup. The Boomershoot staff has learned a lot about explosives. Enough to know that it would be closer (but really correct) to say that 100% of what you seen on T.V. is not true.--Joe]

We've wanted to design an optic mount for the M1 Garand rifle for years, and people have been asking us for one, but it always seemed like there was something else we had to do.  Well, here's our M1 rifle optic mount prototype.  I think it's going to be designated the M12 optic mount.  You saw it here first.

I don't know how many people have told me that their "old eyes" can't make use of the iron sights like they use to, or that it would sure be nice to have a simple way to mount a scout scope or dot sight on a Garand, etc., but it's been a lot.

If you're not familiar with the M1 rifle, it has to be loaded from the top, and when the clip of ammo you shove into the magazine runs empty, the clip is ejected forcefully out the top when the last shot is fired.  That means you can't put an optic over the top of the receiver, 'cause it gets in the way of loading and ejection.  Some M1 rifles were used with scopes mounted off to the left side, but few people like that arrangement.  It works, but you need a special mount and I understand you have to drill the receiver on your classic rifle, plus your manual clip eject button ("clip latch") is there on the left side.

This new mount replaces the handguard just in front of the receiver, clamping solid to the barrel with steel clamps and screws similar to the UltiMAK M8 for the M-14 rifle.  This is the prototype, and is left "in the white".  The production units will be anodized and finished in black.  It sits low enough to co witness (use the iron sights without removing the optic, right through the optic, in case the dot fails) with most tubular dot sights which also means you need no comb riser to get a decent cheekweld.  On this example (a vintage Springfield war horse - Thanks Mr. Devoe) I can center the dot in the Aimpoint Micro, with the rear iron sight all the way down hard, and the rear aperture is completely out of the way, yet I can still aim with the irons if I want.  It's as if the rifle, mount and Micro sight were all made for each other.  That's the way we like it.

[shameless self promotion = "off"]

I'm not putting it on our web site just yet, because we have more tweaking to do, and a lot of other things before it goes into production.  This post is just what the title says.

The M1 rifle is fascinating for several reasons.  One reason is that the gas port in the barrel (where high pressure gas is bled off to operate the action) is right near the muzzle, under the front sight, so the operating rod goes full length form the charging handle to the front sight.  We were talking here the other day about how much machining went into one of these rifle, and how many were made in a short time.  Amazing.  Its design led to a whole family of long guns, including the M-14, M1A, Mini-14, Mini-30, and the M1 Carbine shares some things in common with it.  Back in the day the M1 was state of the art, but today it would be considered on the high end of heavy for a battle rifle, it holds a small number of rounds in the magazine, doesn't lend itself to "tactical reloads" very well, but it sure is a lot of fun, and its .30-06 cartridge packs a punch.  And look how pretty it is.  Just..just look at it.

I'm sure that wasn't their intent but it's nice of the VPC to put up a website and do the research to prove our point.

Sebastian shows us the VPC is misleading if not outright lying.

Joe Waldron on the WA-CCW email list points out:

85 deaths in 2.5 years, by 5,000,000+ CCW holders. I'd be willing to bet rogue cops have killed far more, per capita (6-8 times as many CCW holders as sworn police officers). 35 deaths/year on average, that's one murder per 142,000 CCW holders.

Contrast that to what the overall murder rate is in this country, 5.4 murders per 100,000. So, the average CCW holder is (5.4/100,000)/(1/142,000) or 7.668 times less likely to murder someone than your average private citizen. And that's not correcting for the exaggerations pointed out by Sebastian and the conservative numbers used by Waldron (it's actually 34/5,000,000+ or 1/147,059+). So the real number is probably on the order of 10 times less likely.

Thank you VPC.

SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all but- universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.

Alan Gura
November 16, 2009
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
McDonald, et al. v. Chicago
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF, page 8
[In 1873 the SlaughterHouse cases gutted (pun intended) the 14^th Amendment shortly after it was passed. This miscarriage of intent has been a thorn in the side of civil rights activists ever since. Hence, the McDonald case appeals to both conservatives and liberals for different reasons. Expect an overwhelming victory at the Supreme court for this reason.

The slaughter houses north of New Oreans were responsible for terrible pollution and disease and a solution was required. But the solution was inappropriate and should have been struck down. But just like some disgusting violent criminal who gets off because of an improperly worded search warrent or other technicality would be an outrage so it was with the Slaughterhouse case. The decision went the wrong way and, in essence, the 14^th Amendment was nullified.

This sort of thing is why it is very important to have good "poster children" for the cases you take to the Supreme court. Alan Gura, The Second Amendment Foundation and company have put a lot of effort into finding the ideal "poster children" for this case. I've been promised an interview with one of the plaintiffs (they read this blog) and have been lazy in following up on that. I have all of next week off and plan to get it done sometime before I go back to work.--Joe]

I think I detect a hint of bigotry in this headline, "Second Amendment Brief Filed by Bellevue Gun Nuts".

What if the headline had been, "Bus Boycott started by Montgomery ni**ers"?

It's a little hard to tell from the article but it appears a guy was making .223 shell casings into explosive devices:

Robert J. Heintz Jr., 36, of Deep Creek Road, has been charged with risking a catastrophe, unlawful possession or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction and recklessly endangering another person in connection with Friday night's explosion. Heintz, who suffered a serious hand injury during the explosion, was arrested. He had been released from an area hospital on Sunday.

...

When authorities interviewed Heintz at the hospital, he claimed that he purchased .223 rounds off the Internet from Bulgaria and claimed that the tips were loose on the rounds, according to the arrest affidavit. Heintz allegedly claimed that he was attempting to place the tip back in place with a pliers at the time of the blast.

Heintz, according to the arrest affidavit, told police that he researched "some recipes on the Internet" and downloaded them on his computer. Heintz further claimed that he had mixed a batch using the instructions from the Internet and packed the substance into the .223 round, police alleged.

"He continued to explain that he attempted to ignite these rounds in his back yard with no success of detonation," Moyer alleged. "Heintz explained that he went back into the house to do another round at the computer table, packing the recipe into the brass when the bullet exploded."

He is being charged with possession or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction? That seems more than a bit excessive from the information I can glean from the article. I would have given him an honorable mention for a Darwin Award and told him to apologize to his wife for making a mess in the house.

Here is a hint for people that don't want my nomination for Darwin Awards in the Explosives catagory. Don't let metal come in contact with metal in the presence of explosives. Even if you don't use metals that can create sparks the point of contact between the two metal surfaces generates tremendous pressures. Imagine one pound of force applied to a your plies that makes contact with another piece of metal on an area that is 0.010 x 0.010 inches square. That is 10,000 PSI. Those sorts of pressures, even when confined to an exceedingly small piece of material can initiate a chain reaction. This is part of the reason so many pipe bombers end up blowing themselves up. The threads of the steel pipe create extreme pressures and start a reaction resulting in the rapid dissasembly of the bomb builder a few milliseconds later.

It's not what I preferred but it's better than nothing:

Last week, the A.C.L.U. said it dropped its suit after the T.S.A. clarified its policies in late September. The agency told screeners that, while they were encouraged to refer any suspected criminal activity or illegal contraband discovered in a checkpoint search to law enforcement officials, their job was to screen for weapons and verify passenger identities. “Traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal,” the T.S.A. added in an internal directive on Oct. 29.

I first wrote about it here.

The decision under review, from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, concerns firearms ordinances of two Illinois municipalities, Chicago and Oak Park, that effectively ban the private possession of handguns and unreasonably burden the possession of all firearms. There is no question that, under this Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the categorical ban on handguns, at a minimum, would run afoul of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were it enacted by the Federal government or the District of Columbia. The question presented by this case is whether the Constitution also prevents State and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. For the reasons given herein and in the brief submitted by Petitioners, the answer must be yes. The Court should find either that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States.

Stephan P. Halbrook, et. al.
November 16, 2009
Brief for respondents the National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al. in support of petitioners, page 1.
[The Apex of the Triangle of Death is on the victory train leaving from Chicago.

See also the SAF brief here.--Joe]

Dave Hardy found a piece of history.

That one little piece of paper (as I said once before) cost gun owners billions of dollars, 100's of thousands of hours, and 10's of thousands of lives.

This is the broken link on my STI Eagle 5.1 that I was whining about a few days ago:

It has been replaced and the gun is back on my hip. I'll take it to the range on Wednesday evening.

You can add the U.K. to my list of places I don't want to visit until they start selling hunting tags for politicians and the police.

This is just too outrageous:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested. I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said:

"I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?" To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

Bigotry against gun ownership gone wild.

Via Kevin.

Some ignorant kids across the lake from me at the University of Washington stepped in it, big time, a week or so ago. A NRA instructor stepped in and has at least partially cleaned up the mess:

When he created a group on Facebook earlier this month with the aim of quelling crime around campus, University of Washington student Stanley Luong talked of forming a "vigilante" group to patrol the area.

The idea quickly drew attention — and criticism. Facebook, a social-networking Web site, removed the group from its site.

A member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) stepped in to offer a free training class on the legal ramifications of using deadly force. And a gun range in Kent supplied a room for the meeting Sunday.

...

Rick Walker, an Olympia-area NRA gun instructor, held a free training session to six members of the group on how to get out of a threatening situation without using a gun, and the legal ramifications of using a gun in self-defense.

"I told them the first thing they should do, if they can do so safely, is call 911," Walker said. "It's the smart thing to do."

Guns are such a politically charged issue that talking to the press without having someone experienced in those matters can be a disaster. The Brady Campaign used this gaffe to further their agenda.

Please be careful out there. In more ways that one.

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.