The View From North Central Idaho

Via Glenn Reynolds (via Say Uncle), I found out that TSA let a guy with a gun and a convincing demeaner put his "prisoner" on an airplane.

How can people put up with the security theater at the airport without a look of disgust and anger at the people pawing through their stuff and putting their hands all over them? It's all to make some people feel better.

If someone had the help a dozen people or so who knew what they were doing (here is a hint) the TSA could be thrown out on the street. It's wouldn't be pretty for a week or two, it wouldn't be legal, but I think it could be done.

TSA, A Security Theater.

Via email from veteran Boomershooter (he was at the FIRST Boomershoot in 1998) Steve M. and the author of the article, Jack Lewis, I found out the March 2010 issue of Motorcyclist magazine has an article about a trip to Boomershoot 2009 from the Seattle area on a motorcycle with a sidecar--a 2WD Ural Safari.

It includes a lot of photos (by Shasta Wilson) and is a great story. It includes typical Boomershoot experiences like:

Bundling Pretty Wife into fuzzy blankets, I tossed two cased rifles across her chest and we were off.

"Don't worry, " I bellowed, "It won't rain in the mountains!"

It didn't rain. It snowed.

I bought out the entire supply of the issue at the newsstand in the lobby of the Crossroads Mall in Bellevue, WA and they said they are unlikely to get any more in. The Barnes and Noble next door only had a couple of February issues when I checked on Sunday evening but if you check there now they might have one.

The article starts on page 70.

Via email from co-worker Chet.

Although I haven't heard any trainers directly address this it has been hinted at by some:

Scientists discovered that people move faster when reacting to something than when they perform "planned actions".

In an experimental "duel", published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, they studied the speed of these two types of movement.

...

Pairs of participants were put in a button-pressing competition with each other. Each was secretly given instructions of how long to wait before pushing a row of buttons.

"There was no 'go' signal," said Dr Andrew Welchman from the University of Birmingham, who led the research.

"All they had to go by was either their own intention to move or a reaction to their opponent - just like in the gunslingers legend."

Those who reacted to their opponent were on average 21 milliseconds faster than those who initiated the movement.

During one or more of the classes I took from Insights Greg Hamilton told the students to "use your startle reflex" when the buzzer goes off to decrease your draw time. It works.

You can actually see it other shooters. New shooters take a lot longer to start moving their hand toward the gun and it moves slower when it does move. Tell them to use their "startle reflex" and after a few repetitions you will see their hands jerk into motion and reduce the amount of time required to get their gun deployed.

Apparently we have different pathways in the brain and we can consciously reroute the signals to decrease the time.

This strengthens the wisdom taught in NRA Personal Protection courses about "drawing a line". The students are told they must have a mental threshold past which they will take some sort of action. It might be something like "the door opens" when someone is trying to break into your safe room. Or "they come around the corner of the counter" when the bad guy is advancing at you with a knife. You are reacting to something the bad guy did. In addition to increasing the speed of your response to a threat you are less likely to suffer from a "boiled frog" situation where the situation escalates and you keep postponing your response because "it's not that bad" yet.

Update: See also the Scientific American podcast via Say Uncle.

Oakland California is trying to more heavily restrict firearms dealers. Never mind that there aren't even any gun shops in the city that sell to the public. When this was pointed out they responded with:

I think he wants to be sure that nobody gets any ideas of opening something. And if they did, they could regulate it under this law.

The very idea of someone contributing to people being able to exercise their rights needs to be repressed. At least they aren't (publicly) advocating killing gun owners as some people advocate.

There's a legal and very practical way to deal with open carry gun advocates that will get rid of some bad genes in CA. Tell the open carry gun advocates you dare them to come to your house with their guns. If they are stupid enough to come into your house with their guns get your loaded gun out and blow them away. Not a court in CA will convict you of any crime. This falls under the use of force (lethal) laws in CA. Whether the gun carrier guns are loaded or not you cannot tell and you have the lethal legal right to protect yourself here. This would be a good way to get rid of these mentally challenged people and will contribute to making the gene pool better in CA. Most of these gun carry advocates are already pretty close to getting a 1st place Darwin award. Help make sure that they do get it.

rectifier
February 3, 2010
Comment to Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed
[Remember, these bigots don't just want you in the closet. They want you dead.--Joe]

Don’t expect the NRA to abandon its reliance on the fear of gun bans – it is not clear that the gun lobby knows any other way of arguing its case. And, admittedly, it may take years before the impact of the Heller decision on the gun debate is fully felt.

Dennis Henigan
February 3, 2010
Frank Luntz: “Culture War” Over Guns Is a Myth
[Half Truth Henigan is at it again. It will take years before we finish clearing the books of all the unconstitutional gun laws. But the "gun lobby" makes lots of arguments without "the fear of gun bans". If Henigan believes what he just said then I guess he didn't notice the some of the things the gun lobby has accomplished recently. Examples include Federal legislation allowing people to check guns with luggage on Amtrak, allowing concealed carry in National Parks, and blocking progress on restrictive gun show legislation. This doesn't include the progress made in the previous 20 years on enabling concealed carry.

Even ignoring those items the entire premise of his post is obviously false. There is a huge cultural war going on. How else can you explain observations like those made in the second half this post?

But what makes this particular half-truth so interesting is that all of those items, which have nothing to do with "gun bans", are in the 2009 Brady Gun Violence Prevention Report Card. I can only think of the following possible explanations:

1. Henigan didn't read the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
2. Henigan forgot the contents of the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
3. Henigan didn't believe the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
4. Henigan thinks no one else remembers the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
5. Henigan does not limit himself to rational thought.

I'm inclined to go with #5.--Joe]

The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn't considered "balance" to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is-- a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women's suffrage coalition of Mayors?

One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, "enemy of the state" has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
February 1, 2010
In the comments.
[Wow! I think we should start including the essence of that in our emails to our congress critters.--Joe]

From Fan Security Will Be Tight At Super Bowl:

Bomb sniffing dogs and bomb experts will be fanned out around the stadium trained to spot the smallest explosive anywhere. "These K-9's, they have been trained in over 19,000 explosive components," said Hugo Barrera of the ATF. "They can detect almost anything."

If they actually did that the dogs would be worthless for the task at hand. So many ordinary things can be made to explode (matches, powdered sugar, flour, anti-freeze, fertilizer) that dog alerting on "the smallest explosives anywhere" would have so many false positives that probably a quarter of the people coming into the stadium would be searched.

All the bad guys already know the following so I'll tell you what many people don't want to know--the truth.

You can't make a stadium (or airplane) full of people safe from harm in this manner. What security experts call "The Threat Surface" is just too large. And it's trivial to overload the system with false positives which gives the security guys two options. 1) Shut down operations by investigating each "alarm" by doing a thorough investigation of each "alarm" (do you have a latex allergy sir?) or 2) After the backlog of impatient and irritated customers gets too grumpy they let them bypass the security protocol.

If you want to get something past security in these types of environments you can intentionally create false positives. False positives can bring down almost any security system where there is a modest amount of anonymity and backlog of "angry customers".

For example: The main ingredients for a common suicide bomb in the mid-east are acetone and hydrogen peroxide (both available at your local drug store in the "beauty" section). Covertly spray one or both of these chemicals in "the smallest" amounts on the ground/floor where people will walk on it prior to being screened. Everyone who walks on it instantly becomes suspected shoe bombers when they are screened. What happens then? Sometime before the 100^th false positive in a row the security people ignore that particular "alarm" and let people on through. The 110^th person actually does have a bomb in his shoe and walks through security without incident.

Another example: A car alarm that goes off every couple of hours every night without apparent cause will probably have the alarm turned off by the third night.

Super Bowl Security is just Security Theater.

Via Jeff I found out about National Association for Gun Rights India. I immediately forwarded the link to Shobana and Priyanka (and here).

I then read the article and found out, as expected with something highly regulated, there is corruption involved:

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek , said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

To illustrate the point, gun advocates refer to a 2008 incident in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The clamor for gun licenses was so high, according to news media, that officials tried to induce men with large families to participate in a vasectomy program by promising a license in return.

If the men have to get a vasectomy to get a gun license I wonder what the women have to do. I wonder if they think this through... if the woman pays too high a price to be able to get the proper tool to defend herself and family there might be an increased potential for some payback when she gets her gun.

Gun Control supporters are in the grips of a long term voter backlash that shows no sign of abating anytime soon, the gun control gains made in the early 1990's planted the seeds, and those seeds, having grown into trees, are bearing fruit now. Every time a politician even mentions any kind of gun control, email servers melt, mail bags multiply, phone lines get red hot, and politicians get the message very quickly.

As long as gun owners perceive a threat, their activism will continue, after all, it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive. They are reminded of the threat, regularly, like the push to ban assault rifles in Washington state...Eric Holders comments.."talk" of closing the gun show loophole. Even Brady giving Obama an "F" reminds us, that their are people out there, who are plotting and scheming against the US Bill of Rights.

The talking heads on the news, that talk about "meaningful gun control" and complain about "lack of movement" on it, don't realize that all they are doing is reminding, millions of TV viewers in "rest of the nation", that "they are still trying to ban guns"...They elites just don't get it, so they keep talking, and the people, keep listening, and seeing the threat..

The Brady Campaign's and VPC's successes, almost 20 years ago, has come back to bite them, they kept "poking" the sleeping giant that is several million, peaceful, law abiding, reliably voting, solid block of gun owners... The politicians where quick to learn that gun control did not bring near the votes, Sara and her ilk promised, instead it costed them dearly, when their first votes on Gun Control, became among their very last votes.

Now those gun owners have reached the political strength, to not only stop, most gun control proposals before they even get to the floor for a vote, they have the ability to form their own legislation, and get it passed into law, and that is what we are seeing now...

15 years, of constant, steady political gains, has made it so..

Brady and the VPC should have quit, when they where ahead in 1993....The Hated AW ban of 1994, was the legislation that enraged millions, and most of them are still pissed about it.

If they would have stopped then, gun rights would not have moved so far today, but when they started banning guns, because of cosmetic features, gun owners woke up and said this is pure political BS, and "not one step more".

In a way, Brady, MMM, and the VPC, are their own worst enamy...We are a creation of them, now they can feel our wrath, its not our fault that we outnumber them by 10 to 1 at every meeting, lobby day, or public event..

The sad truth is, if they really want the gun right movement to go away, all they need to do is SHUT THE HELL UP about gun control, and in a few years, many strong gun rights supporters would stop pushing the legislators....BUT, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Micheal Blomberg, all republicans, cannot shut their traps that long to let the issue die down...

They keep the wound raw, so we, the great mass that is the Gun Rights movement, will march on...to victory...

Virginia Mountainman
January 31, 2009
Death of the Gun Control movement, birth of the Gun Rights movement
[I think this is a little overstated but the essence is true.--Joe]

At the hearing on the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban" in Olympia last week someone got an education in gun rights:

Prior to the hearing, as several Open Carry activists gathered in the hallway of the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building, Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli approached a member of the State Patrol’s security team and, after pointing out that there were visibly armed citizens in the building, demanded of the trooper: “Do you know if they’re loaded?”

Sources have confirmed to the Gun Rights Examiner that Fascitelli appeared both irritated and unnerved, and he wanted the State Patrol troopers to check every firearm at the door of the building to see if they were loaded. He was told by the WSP that troopers do not have the authority under state law to do that.

Apparently news of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution, the Washington State Constitution, and Heller decision hasn't reach Mr. Fascitelli yet. This is the same guy that said anyone that uses a semi-automatic gun to hunt is "an animal assassin". Maybe since he is from New York he is just a little "slow". Odd, he doesn't look that stupid:

Maybe he just thinks "those people" should just "learn their place" and he was hoping for some support by the police in teaching them a lesson. Instead he got the lesson.

I wish the WSP had just told him, "I would assume they are all loaded. Why would they carry unloaded guns around? We don't." Of course had he burst a blood vessel in his brain someone might have been charged with manslaughter. Just imagine the headlines--"Gun nuts kill without firing a shot" or "Looking at gun owners proves deadly".

Still, I think that in this case the benefits of open carry proved their worth. The risk of manslaughter charges was worth the pleasure of unnerving Mr. Fascitelli and teaching him that as the board president of the anti-freedom organization Washington Ceasefire he has a long hard battle ahead of him.

Occasionally I have spent time on understanding those opposed to freedom. Other times I just said it doesn't matter why -- we just have to defeat them.

Kevin put a lot more effort and research into the understanding that I ever would have expended. It's basically a extended book report on A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell with lots of supporting material from Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek to Markadelphia. I've put it in my "wish list" of books to buy from Audible.com and will probably start it within a week or so.

It took me an hour to read (it is a classic Kevin Baker post) but I found the enlightenment worth my time.

The main point is there is a fundamental first principle that differentiates advocates for freedom from those that oppose us. Sowell and Baker, in this post, refer to two different "social visions": the Constrained and the Unconstrained.

The Constrained Vision people advocate, among other things, setting up processes to limit the damage done by the extremes of individual human behaviors such as violent crime and group crimes such as enslavement and genocide. This limits political power for both good and evil. The Constrained Vision advocates view the limit of political power as a trade-off. Sure, it might be that you can create something closer to a utopia if more power is given to the government but the risks are not worth it.

The Unconstrained Vision people minimize or dismiss the possibility enhanced governmental powers becoming a hazard and focus on the possible benefits. When the enhanced governmental powers fail to deliver the anticipated benefits they advocate even more governmental powers and the silence and/or death of those that oppose them. Facts become irrelevant (as seen in my post made a few minutes before I started looking at Kevin's post).

Ultimately the two differences in first principle lead to conclusions that are diametrically opposed on fundamental issues. In this video where a liberal scumbag running for U.S. president gets rights and privileges absolutely backward you have to conclude that even though he is a lawyer that he cannot have read the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I keep reading Kevin's post, hoping to find something that could be used as a tool to recover our freedom in this country. What can you say or do that lead us out of what to some appears to be a death spiral?

I didn't find the conclusion I was looking for. Instead it was in the first few paragraphs. As Sowell says (via Kevin):

Peter Robinson: If you had a sentence or two to say to the Cabinet assembled around President Obama, and this cabinet holds glittering degrees from one impressive institution after another, if you could beseech them to conduct themselves in one particular way between now and the time they leave office, what would you say?

Thomas Sowell: Actually, I would say only one word: Goodbye. Because I know there's no point talking to them.

Hence, understanding is not all that important. Only defeating them is important. I'll still be trying to understand but the more I understand the more I agree with son James here and here.

Via daughter Kim:

Laws that forbid motorists from using hand-held phones or texting while driving don't appear to result in a significant decrease in vehicle crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute expected to be released Friday.

The study, expected to be released at a conference in Washington, D.C., Friday, comes amid stepped-up efforts by federal highway-safety regulators to ban texting while driving and curb other forms of driver distraction. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this week announced rules to forbid commercial truck and bus drivers from text messaging while driving. Mr. LaHood has said he would ban all texting while driving if he could.

...

The HLDI, a research organization sponsored by the insurance industry, studied data on monthly collision claims in four states that banned the use of hand-held phones by motorists before and after the bans went into effect. The HLDI also compared collision data from states that enacted bans on driving while texting or phoning to accident claims in states that didn't enact such bans.

I find the Department of Transportation response "interesting":

The Transportation Department in a statement Friday criticized the HLDI findings, saying "it is irresponsible to suggest that laws banning cell phone use while driving have zero effect on the number of crashes on our nation's roadways."

Typical of the nanny state mentality -- in their minds the use of actual facts and data is "irresponsible".

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or it becomes true.

John Lilly
[See also what Paul Simon said on essentially the same topic.

There are lots of examples of this. It helps explain why there are so many religions that have incompatible "immutable truths". It helps explain advocates of socialism even after the deaths of tens of millions and the misery of 100's of millions by those attempting to build a "workers paradise". And in my favorite example it helps explain why Chicago politicians put up such an irrational defense in the McDonald v. Chicago case (via Dave Hardy)--Joe]

What's happened is that, true to form, Democrats can't seem to get out of their own way. Unlike their counterparts on the right, the party leadership, from Obama on down the Congressional line, is comprised of a bunch of spineless, visionless, disorganized, pseudo-intellectual sailors sinking in a sea of their own delusion and denial.

Andy Ostroy (Democrat)
January 27, 2009
The Problem with Democrats
[Considering that nearly everything they attempt to legislatively do cannot be found in the enumerated powers granted them by the U.S. Constitution I don't have a problem with this.--Joe]

When police are called to a 'man with a gun' call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply 'exercising their rights.'

Lt. Ray Lunny
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
January 28, 2009
News report inspires man to display gun in E. Palo Alto store
[Sounds a lot like responding to a call about someone "driving while black" in the "wrong" neighborhood.

You have to "love" them putting "exercising their rights" in quotation marks.

Via Say Uncle.--Joe]

Writing to one's state or U.S. representatives is quite easy, thanks in part to Algore's internets/tubes, and it is often an important thing to do.  They need to know what we're thinking, whether or not they agree.  More importantly, they need to be reminded of their duties in upholding the state and/or U.S. constitution, as they are so prone to (eh-hem) forget.  Soon after writing my WA state senators, cc-ing the house, thusly;

-----Original Message-----
From: Lyle
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Schoesler, Sen. Mark
Cc: Fagan, Rep. Susan; Schmick, Rep. Joe
Subject: Stop This Nonsense

HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO:  Senator Mark Schoesler

CC:  Representative Susan Fagan
     Representative Joe Schmick

FROM: Lyle

BILL:  6396 (Against)

SUBJECT:  Stop This Nonsense

MESSAGE:

Senate Bill 6396, the "assault weapon" bill is not only an affront to the Washington state and federal constitutions, it cannot possibly do anything to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  Criminals by definition don't obey such laws, and if certain guns are outlawed, criminals will be the only ones using them.

Further, it is well known that the federal "assault weapon ban" of 1994 (expired in 2004) did nothing to reduce or prevent crimes.

This new state bill can only be described as gun owner harassment, and an attack on the very concepts of liberty and self defense.

I point out that the AR-15 style rifle has recently become the most popular rifle platform in the U.S., and it would be outlawed by SB6396.  Millions of handguns carried for defense would become illegal under this bill also.  Is this how we are to fight crime-- by disarming or harassing the potential victims?

I urge you and your colleagues to stop this in its tracks, by any means necessary.  Further, I expect you to take decisive action within both the House and Senate against any law-maker who so brazenly attacks our personal liberties.  We will be watching.

Thank You.

I received the following response;

From: Schmick, Rep. Joe [mailto:Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Lyle
Subject: RE: Stop This Nonsense

Thank you for your comments.  I have heard an overwhelming objection to this bill from others in the 9th legislative district.

I oppose any gun regulation.  I fully support your second amendment rights to bear and keep arms and rest assured, I will vote accordingly.

Sincerely,

Joe Schmick
State Representative

Good for Joe Schmick.  Just one little bone to pick; he makes no mention of going after law makers "who so brazenly attack our personal liberties".  No big surprise there.  This is a new concept.  Even pro-liberty politicians (or is that an oxymoron?) are accustomed to playing defensive holding actions 99 to 100% of the time.  We'll let that one go for now, though at some point this will have to change.  Your team will never make it to the SuperBowl with the greatest defense and no offense.  I replied;

Thank you very much for your response.  If it helps to convince others who may be on the fence, I invite you to recall that state initiative 676 back in the 1990s, which was a sweeping weapon restriction scheme, failed overall by a margin of about 69 to 31.  Washington citizens may be evenly split on some issues, but [this] is certainly not one of them.

Best Regards,

Lyle

No one else responded for about a week.  Then came this bit from state rep Susan Fagan (oh boy);

Lyle,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns and comments.  I appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your views with me.

I am humbled and honored to represent our constituents in the 9th District.  As legislators, we have hundreds of issues to consider.  We need to be fiscally responsible and work towards stimulating the economy.  We also need to help protect our most vulnerable citizens and maintain individual rights and freedoms.

Please know that I am working hard to make the best decisions possible towards responsive and efficient state government.  Your input alerts me to issues of major concern and helps me to effectively serve our district.

Best regards,

Susan Fagan
State Representative
9th Legislative District

439 John L. O'Brien Building
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA  98504-0600
(360) 786-7942
Fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov

It's a form letter, designed as a blanket response, no matter the issue, no matter the position.  The only clue in there as to any sort of a position is that the term "individual rights and freedoms" appears.  A hard-core communist revolutionary probably wouldn't say that, but then again a hard-core communist revolutionary is also a chameleon, or a liar, by definition.  Not much to go on as part of a universal "I don't have the time to respond to you directly so here's some crap for you to chew on.  Now go away and don't bother me" letter.  A bit insulting.  She could have at least hired a junior high school delinquent to send a form letter addressing this particular issue as part of his public service requirement.  Such is life.  Very few politicians have the courage to actually say things.  No one else responded, but they did get my letter and that must count for something (so I tell myself).  If nothing else, the sheer volume can tell them a lot, and volume they have been getting.

Kevin has the story.

I just want to add that my degrees are in Electrical Engineering but when I worked for the Aerospace Division at Boeing a lot of my time there was in the "Terminal Guidance Lab". Now at Microsoft I work on "location for cell phones". In my spare time I play with my chemistry set and make targets.

It's almost as if Kevin was talking about my career.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy
[This doctrine should be universally applied to all infringements of liberty here and abroad. If the president were doing his job he would start arresting the anti-gun and anti-liberty politicians in Washington D.C. then Chicago, New Jersey, California, etc. After the U.S. is cleaned up Canada and Mexico should be encouraged to get in line.

I'm posting this for January 27^th on January 26^th, a day early because I need it for another post. I thought I had already posted it years ago but I can't find it now.--Joe]

Joe Waldron reported the following to the WA-CCW and WA-Guns email lists on the hearing in Olympia on Tuesday:

I just finished scanning the sign-in sheets on the bill.

313 signed in

14 signed "pro" (yes) on the bill
299 signed "con" (no) on the bill.

Actually, it was 11 "yes" and three blank, but they were in a bunch, all from Ceasefire, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Congratulations to Washington gun owners on a fine turnout! It doesn't quite beat the count for the gun show bill three years ago (SB 5197), but it was close!!!

21.4 to 1.

Typical. And probably the reason the MSM didn't mention numbers.

Also in the comments there was mention of people on our side that didn't sign in because they got there a little bit late (parking is hard to find near the capital) and who were directed to the overflow area away from the sign in table.

Good job guys.

Oh, there were some people that open carried. The cops helping with crowd control were just fine with it. They OC, so why should there be a problem if their bosses OC?