# Monday, August 31, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 31, 2009 6:57:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

As I've said for many years "crime prevention" is a hot button for me.

This type of crap is rather annoying to me:

A Lincoln man will spend close to five years in federal prison for possessing a homemade gun silencer.

On Monday, United States District Judge Richard Kopf sentenced Douglas West to 57 months in prison following his conviction for unlawful possession of a silencer.

West, 50, admitted guilt in May 2009 after being arrested in Lincoln in 2006 with the homemade silencer.

The U.S. Attorney says tests conducted by the ATF laboratories confirmed that the device functioned as a silencer and that it had been used as gunpowder residue was detected inside the device.

A pillow or any number of household items also functions as a sound suppressor. And furthermore in some countries you are required to use a suppressor. Here you are punished if you don't pay the $200 tax or you try to make your own.

And even using the criteria listed in the article, that it functions as a suppressor and that it had gunpowder residue inside the device, I'll bet they could meet that standard using my coat sleeve even though I have never fired a gun through it.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 31, 2009 10:21:36 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

Via email from Say Uncle:

I thought IDPA was supposed to be about real world defensive shooting. If so then why didn't the shooter get off the line of attack? In my training at Insights we did a LOT of that. I kept wanting to push off to one side just watching this video.

Robb Allen also has some comments on the video.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 31, 2009 10:18:01 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot )

Tomorrow evening, September 1, at 1700 PDT there will be an opening for Boomershoot 2010 available.

It probably will be position 4 in the .50 Caliber Ghetto. I have offered it to current entrants in the event so it is possible someone else will take it and open up a position someplace else.

Update: Gone in 92 minutes.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 31, 2009 10:09:50 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

As Petitioners note, preambles are examined only "[i]f words happen to still be dubious." Pet. Br. 17 (quotation and citation omitted). "[B]ut when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble." James Kent, 1 COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 516 (9th ed. 1858). "The preamble can neither limit nor extend the meaning of a statute which is clear. Similarly, it cannot be used to create doubt or uncertainty." Norman Singer, 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47.04, at 295 (7th ed. 2007).

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
[Just a reminder to those bigots that keep insisting the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government having a right to own guns when they want to ignore the 9-0 decision in favor of an individual right in Heller.--Joe]

# Sunday, August 30, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:20:34 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights )

This post was inspired by this post by Rachel Lucas (H/T to David).

From her post:

The first thing that surprised me about Auschwitz is that it is not as secluded these days as I expected; it is just right there in what seems like the middle of this average small town. It’s just…right there. It is jarring. There’s a busy parking lot about 50 yards from the “front door,” a lot that is filled with buses and cars and noisy tourists. Again. Very jarring.

...

It was the most surreal moment of my life so far. There I was, facing this object I’ve seen in a thousand photographs, something that is attached in my mind to pure abject despair and massive human suffering…and it’s surrounded by happy tourists. It was almost like a Disneyland version of hell, just because of all the serene camera-toting tourists. Of which I was one, I know that, but still. It was nothing short of the worst case of cognitive dissonance I think I’ll ever experience.

...

There was such natural beauty visible to any human standing in the middle of Birkenau that day. It was as if nature was asserting herself over all the despair and ugliness. Look how green I can be, feel this perfect air, listen to this thunder, there is always something good that will come out of something awful.

How will you know when the plane, train or bus you are told by the government to board is headed to "the camp"? The sun will look no different on that day. The clouds won't have your eulogy written in them. And the nearby buildings will look the same as it did the day and the week before. Will you fuss about your children's clothes that just got dirty because they rubbed up against the lamp post? Will you worry if you packed enough underwear for your trip? Will you curse under your breath because you forgot to bring sunscreen or an extra jacket?

I will know when it is the government telling me I must get on a plane, train, or bus or report to a particular location. I won't be worrying about dirt on anyone's clothes or what I didn't bring. I'll be worrying about getting a good sight picture and alternate exit routes.

How will you know whether the medicine the government doctor gives you to ease your pain is in your best interests or the governments best interest? Will the treatment prescribed be for the good of society as a whole or will it be for the good of the individual?

I will know when the doctor gets his paycheck from the government and cannot get a job with similar compensation in the private sector.

How will you know when gays, blacks, Japanese, Muslims, or Jews are in danger of being sent to the camps?

I will know when the government demands that information be put in lists--whether that list is in the form of an ID card or a census. But census data can't be legally used for 70 years, right? I've got news for you. U.S. census data was used to find Japanese citizens and send them them to the "War Relocation Camps" in 1942.

Just because you have never broken the law or injured another doesn't mean those in power won't think of you as a terrorist. Are you a gun owner? To some that means you are a potential threat to society. They may think 10% of gun owners "shouldn't have guns". But how can they determine which 10%? Just to be safe they have to send them all to the camps, just for a little while until they can sort them out, right? It is for the good of society. The world will be a better place soon. It's will hurt for just a little bit. Sort of like an inoculation, a little jab and it stings for a few seconds and then everything will be better. It's only 10%.

How will gun owners know when it's time to start shooting? The sun will look no different on that day. The clouds won't have their eulogy written in them...

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:21:09 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

Most of their money comes from a single source, like Soros, the Joyce Foundation or the Tides Foundation (Maria Theresa Simoes Ferrara Heinz Kerry). Their "membership" is a joke.

Sad as the pro-gun lobby is in terms of membership -- maybe six million nationwide out of 70-80 MILLION gun owners (and that double-counts many of us who belong to multiple organizations), we're way more committed, individually, than the other side. That's why the Brady Bunch "captured" (actually, co-opted) the name "and the Million Mom March" to give the impression of numbers that don't exist.

Ditto Seattle's "crime gun person," whose huge salary is paid for by a grant from the anti-gun lobby.

Just more elitist SOBs who know better than you do how to run your life. You're too stupid, so just shut up and do what you're told, it's for your own good. You see a lot of that mentality in the current health care debate, as well. The nanny-state crowd.

Joe Waldron
August 30, 2009
Washington CCW email list Subversive Gun Groups Question (membership required)
[How many members does the Brady Campaign have? Oh, that's right. There isn't even a way to become a member on their website.

This is reflected in the number of gun blogs as well. I only know of one active anti-gun blog that isn't a paid position. There are 127 pro gun blogs listed at GunBloggers and that is just a partial listing as I know of some gun blogs that aren't on that list (although I know there are some inactive blogs on that list as well).

I've attended numerous public hearings (such as this one) and public demonstrations. We outnumbered them at least 10 to one each time. Sometimes 100 to one. The rallies for I-676 a while back--we outnumbered them 1000 to one.

If the big money of the special interest anti-gun groups with the cooperation of the mainstream media wasn't in play it would be game over for them.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 29, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:03:56 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life )

Barb's brother says sister Susan's kids are 'nice'. Barb's kids are 'interesting'.

This video of Xenia's speech for her communications class is further evidence of 'interesting'. I think the topic was something like "An event that changed my life":

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:44:37 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life | Quote of the Day )

I'm a carbs based life form.

Kelsey
August 29, 2009
[Barb and I had lunch with son James and his girlfriend Kelsey today. Kelsey continues to please us with her sparkle and affection toward James. We all had fun and lots of laughs today. The following banter is just one example:

Barb: James was so sweet when he was little.
Kelsey: [to James] So when did you stop being sweet?
Joe: I think sweetness is a constant in your lifetime. If you use it up when you are little you don't have any left when you get older.
Barb: [to Joe] So when did you use up your sweetness?
Joe: [after the laughter subsided] I've just been saving it for someone else.

Also discussed were lentil cookies, how James made QOTD in his comment about them, daughters Kim and Xenia's burping contests, and Xenia's college speech and video about farts.

Barb's brother says sister Susan has nice children but Barb has interesting children.--Joe]

# Friday, August 28, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 28, 2009 6:55:17 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

The North Carolina Supreme Court threw out a ban on a convicted felon having a gun.

I've read this from two different news outlets and two blogs (Say Uncle and the Confederate Yankee which he links to) but I think it all boils down to a single source which gives me insufficient information to answer the questions I want answered. Therefore I will speculate.

My speculation is that this felon, Barney Britt, had his gun rights restored under Federal law in 1987. North Carolina had no law banning convicted felons from gun ownership so he was able to own guns. Then in 2004 North Carolina passed a law that said convicted felons could not own a gun even if their rights had been restored under Federal law. Now he suddenly, after up to 17 years of legal gun ownership, he was prohibited from owning guns due to no recent fault of his own.

What I want to know is the reasoning of the court. Was it an ex post facto issue? Or was it in someway based on Heller and/or the Second Amendment and/or the North Carolina Constitution provision (in many ways nearly identical to the 2nd Amendment).

If it is an ex post facto issue then it's not all that newsworthy. If it's because of a right to keep and bear arms issue then it could much more interesting.

Update: Via Xrlq I have the ruling. The ruling was based on the NC Constitution. Very interesting.

As pointed out by the dissent "the majority has crafted an individualized exception for a sympathetic plaintiff." But my quick scan of the ruling did not reveal guidelines/tests for other plaintiffs to determine their status other than "his uncontested lifelong nonviolence towards other citizens, his thirty years of lawabiding conduct since his crime, his seventeen years of responsible, lawful firearm possession between 1987 and 2004, and his assiduous and proactive compliance with the 2004 amendment, has affirmatively demonstrated that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety."

I expect the legislature will be amending the law to carve out exceptions or a process by which some felons can have their gun rights restored.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 28, 2009 6:42:56 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday I had a request for permission to use some of my pictures in an Italian magazine and blog. He told me:

Both on my site and on my articles, I write about reloading, especially for pistols.

One of my elaboration led me to examine the correlation between recoil intensity and bullets weight. I will public this article both on my site and on "Armi Magazine" journal. Now I am searching some pictures about recoil.

This email to ask you if I could use some of beautiful photos from your blog, in particular that in attached (have you the HD format ?), for sure I will mention your name on the pictures.

Here are the pictures (cropped down to the interesting parts) I sent him:

Some of you will recognize the guns and others will recognize their own hands.

Update: I have a .pdf file of the completed article now. Only the first picture above was used (Robb, your hands may soon be famous in Italy). Once the article is actually published I should be getting a link to it and I will post it. Here is the title of the article:

"Tiro dinamico: palla leggera o pesante ?" - "Dynamic shooting (IPSC): light or heavy bullet?"

Sub title: "Rilevamento e tempo di riarmo di una pistola in funzione del peso palla" - "Recoil and slide time as a function of bullet weight"

As I have been shooting IPSC (now USPSA) for nearly 15 years this is a topic of great interest to me. From what I can tell looking at the graphs and picking up a few words and numbers in the article this is a very interesting article. I'll probably spend the time to run it through an automated translator to get a better idea of what it says.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 28, 2009 7:59:08 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Freedom )

David has some new wall paper up on his office wall (and here). He calls it "Wall o' Freedom".

Very nice.

But I'm biased.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 28, 2009 7:31:08 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

I guess that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill in Kennedy's name. Of course, if you want an accurate descriptor, they would call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial health service, and patients would spend their lives getting taken for a ride by an elected official who will try their best to screw them, and then die while they wait for someone in the government to do the right thing.

'Doc' Russia
August 26, 2009
More gallows humor
[Via an email from Scott K.

I cannot think of a single thing to add to this.--Joe]

# Thursday, August 27, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:10:52 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

Suppose you are interested in improving your pistol scores in a game where time matters--a lot. USPSA, Steel Challenge, or IDPA for example.

How do you go about that? Well, practice, sure. But what do you practice? And how do you know what your weak areas are? It was several years ago (since this post is about precise units of time it was 12 years, 10 months and 1 day ago) but I took a class called Intensive Handgun Skills and learned some interesting things about this topic.

I'm not sure why but a lot of people spend a lot of time practicing their draw (I used to too). They will spend hours trying to shave another 0.1 or 0.2 seconds off their draw. 0.5 seconds faster? That would be awesome, right?

Maybe not. Let's do some simple arithmetic.

Suppose you are shooting a fairly simple stage such as El Presidente. You draw (and turn), shoot six rounds, reload, and shoot six more rounds.

That involves one draw, one reload, and ten splits. If you were to cut 0.05 seconds off each of your splits you are just as well off as if you had cut that awesome 0.5 seconds off of your draw or reload.

What about something even simpler? A Steel Challenge stage has five plates and involves drawing and shooting five rounds (assuming you hit them all with one shot). So that is one draw and four splits. In order to match that awesome 0.5 seconds you worked so hard to gain on your draw you need to improve your splits by only 0.125 seconds each.

That doesn't mean you can ignore your draw or reloads but it does mean, in absolute terms, your split times are generally more important than the draw and reloads.

But how much is there to be gained in your shooting? If you are already getting 0.25 second A-zone double taps on the USPSA target at 10 yards getting another 0.05 seconds represents a 20% improvement. If your draw is 2.5 seconds then 0.5 seconds also represents a 20% improvement to it. One might think that the effort involved should be about the same, 20% either way. Right?

It turns out that isn't true. Or at least that isn't the way to bet.

A better way to look at the problem is to compare yourself to other shooters and keep yourself "balanced". If you improve your weakest areas you will get a better return on your investment in practice time and ammo.

Here is a table they gave us (I added the "Calculated El Presidente" row) at that class nearly 13 years ago:

Intensive Handgun Skills
From Greg Hamilton at Insights (www.insightstraining.com) Standards: All Times Are With USPSA Target.  Range is 10 yards
IPSC: GM: 95->100%, M 85->95-%, A: 75->85-%, B: 60->75-%, C:40->60-%, D: < 40%
Approximate Level
Skill 40% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Group Size (inches) 7.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
2 shots on one A-zone (split time in seconds) 0.80 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20
1 shot on 2 A-zone (split time in seconds) 0.95 0.60 0.55 0.49 0.43 0.37 0.31 0.25
Low Ready to 1 A-zone (seconds) 1.50 1.00 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.67 0.59 0.50
Close Quarters To 1 A-zone (seconds) 1.50 1.00 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.67 0.59 0.50
Draw to 1 A-zone (seconds) 3.00 2.00 1.85 1.68 1.51 1.34 1.17 1.00
1 shot, speed reload, 1 shot (split time in seconds) 4.50 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50
Immediate action (seconds) 6.00 4.00 3.66 3.33 3.00 2.66 2.33 2.00
Remedial Action (seconds) 14.00 10.00 9.35 8.67 8.00 7.34 6.67 6.00
Calculated El Presidente 16.10 10.40 9.50 8.54 7.58 6.62 5.66 4.70
El Presidente (2 each on 3 targets, reload, 2 each on same 3 targets) < 5.0
Demi Presidente (2 each on 3 targets, reload, 1 each on upper A of same 3 targets) < 5.0

In the table above it is assumed you are getting all A-zone hits. If you aren't getting A-zone hits in practice you are going too fast. You should push yourself until you occasionally get a non-A hit but then you back off such that you are just on the edge.

So if you are already getting 0.25 second A-Zone double taps you are shooting at about 95% of the skill level of the best shooters in the world. But if your draw is 2.5 seconds you are at about the 55% level. If you spend your time on your draw you should be able to cut 0.5 seconds off of it much faster and easier than you could cut another 0.05 off of your splits. And probably you will get over a full second off of it without too much trouble.

This assumes you are using the proper technique. You may be hitting a "wall" because you are practicing the wrong thing. If you are way off "balance" and things aren't getting better as fast as you think they should then get some expert instruction to make sure you are practicing the right thing. Remember what Say Uncle said one year and five days ago.

Similar trade-offs can be made for determining what other skills you should practice.

Keep it balanced and practice the right things.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:22:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

Sometimes when I read the news I think I'm back in jr. High school.  This time it feels like fourth grade elementary.  When I was in fourth grade, I observed a girl enjoying some canned cherries during lunch.  Unable, for whatever reason, to leave her in peace to enjoy her cherries, I walked close to her and said in a low voice; "You're eating cow guts".

Apparently this caused her to lose her appetite, and she was distressed enough to tell the teacher, who later called me on it.

Fast-forward to adulthood.  Today if you're enjoying a hamburger, you hear from the food Nazis; "That'll clog your arteries, contribute to deforestation in South America and pollute the atmosphere with methane (cow farts)."  You're enjoying a smoke; "That'll give you cancer and cause kids to have health problems, and you're supporting Big Corporations that are trying to keep you addicted and kill you for profit."  You're having a soda; "All that sugar will detonate your pancreas and make you fat."  You're having a diet soda; "Those artificial sweeteners will give you cancer."

"That car of yours is going to destroy the planet, you filthy planet killer you."

"Unsafe at any speed" etc., etc., "That salad you're eating is full of pesticides and that stuff was grown on corporate, industrial farms that have no regard for the planet..." etc., etc., etc.  It never ends, and if you're resistant to this crap, congratulations, if you can avoid getting the "Swine Flu" which happens to be just like any normal, run-of-the-mill flu, but ZOMG we're all gonna dieeee!

Today's reason not to enjoy yourself is that your candlelit dinner is going to give you cancer.  So quit enjoying yourself (you selfish twit) be afraid, and call your Congressman to demand something be done about "Big Candle" before the children all die and the puppies all get cancer just so someone can enjoy a nice candlelit dinner while people in (insert country) are starving.

And you leftists think you're all about rights and freedom and privacy and stuff.  I'm gonna tell the teacher on you.

I found a reference to this candle scare on Rush Limbaugh's site  (and there are some great comments at the Washington Times article on the subject) while looking for the fantastic quotes he found regarding Death Panels.  More on that later.

Someone is actually spending money and time to research candle pollution.  Wow.  Like no one knew that burning things releases combustion products into the air.  I find that the phrase, "too much free time" tends to spring to mind.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:47:33 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom )

The Soldier

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Father Denis Edward O'Brien
USMC
[Although O'Brien used the above poem in his writings he was apparently not the original author.

I'm reminded of this poem because, via Say Uncle, Take a Vet to Lunch is a worthy cause.--Joe]

# Wednesday, August 26, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:31:48 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Gun Fun )

Everyone knows what Russian Roulette is. But have you heard the joke about French Roulette? Yes, there is a real game by this name but many decades ago it was also a joke involving Bridget Bardot.

The post from Tamara this morning reminded me of the joke. I have modified it by substituting a different person for Bardot and it becomes "Gun Blogger Roulette" instead of French Roulette.

Q: Do you know how to play Gun Blogger Roulette?
A: Six guys take showers and you give them each a towel when they get out--one of the towels has Roberta X. in it.

Yeah, I know. I'm risking a lot with that.

It's all in good fun, right? Right? Please?

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:02:44 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights )

The bigots in New York and New Jersey routinely violate Federal law and arrest gun owners that attempt to check their guns in as baggage on commercial flights.

David Hardy has links to briefs in the lawsuit against them. The facts of the case will probably enrage you:

However, Torraco testified that Sgt. Goldberg’s first question was “Where is your New York license?”. Goldberg testified that he asked if Torraco had a New York permit, to which Torraco explained that under 18 U.S.C. § 926A, he did not need one.

Torraco urged Goldberg to call the state prosecutor or other person who would know about § 926A. Goldberg “told me federal law does not apply in the State of New York. He told me very condescendingly that he ain’t calling nobody and that I was in his jurisdiction.”

...

Defendant Officer Robert Paulsen arrived at the scene and requested, and was shown, Winstanley’s permits for the firearms and driver’s license. He asked Winstanley if he had an Arizona permit. Winstanley responded that he did not need a permit to carry a weapon openly in Arizona, but that he did have a Florida permit, which permitted him to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona. Paulsen disagreed, although he later testified that he was only trained in New York and New Jersey state law. Winstanley asked to speak to Paulsen’s supervisor. Paulsen told Winstanley that if he persisted in asking to speak to a supervisor, he would place him under arrest.

"Federal law does not apply in the State of New York" and "I was his jurisdiction". What if this was some big-bellied sheriff in Mississippi or Alabama saying that to a black guy and his wife peacefully going about their business?

I did note with some satisfaction the lawsuit "seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of the laws, statute, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of New York, of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and by Acts of Congress." And that it is against the following organizations and individuals:

PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH J. RINGLER, JR., Executive Director, Port Authority of NY & NJ; PORT AUTHORITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMUEL J. PLUMERI, JR., Director of Public Safety/Superintendent of Police, Port Authority Police Department; CHRISTOPHER TRUCILLO, Chief, Port Authority Police Department; Port Authority Police SERGEANT GOLDBERG; Port Authority Police Officer ANTHONY ESPINAL (shield # 2134); Port Authority Police Officer PAULSEN (shield # 2306); Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (shield #1400); Port Authority Police LIEUTENANT, unknown at present (Lieutenant John Doe IV); Port Authority Police SERGEANT, unknown at present (Jane Doe I); Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (John Doe I); Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (John Doe II); and Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (John Doe III)

Until the individual bigots involved start having to pay a price this sort of thing will not stop. Maybe this time they will get slapped down by the courts rather than merely having the charges against the gun owners dropped as is usual in these cases.

Even so, it is my intent to not set foot in New Jersey unless I can buy hunting tags for New Jersey law enforcement and politicians.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:09:34 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot )

On Saturday daughter Kim and I went to the Boomershoot site to do some prep and infrastructure work. We also did the data reduction thing on this visit.

Kim folded another 300 boxes to be used as target containers:

That is a total of 1135 boxes we have ready for next year. We plan on making another 1007. Those numbers just boggle my mind. The first three Boomershoot combined only had about 1/10th that number of targets.

I dug up the barrel used for cleaning water storage:

I rubbed the skin off my right thumb digging the hole. Kim offered me some gloves before I started digging but I figured my hands were tough enough to handle it. I was wrong.

I didn't dig the hole entirely by hand...

I managed to misjudge where the barrel was and mangled the barrel with the backhoe pretty badly. But I didn't damage it enough that it required repairs or replacement:

We thought we had a leak because the drain tile should have filled the tank with spring run-off but there was no water in it when we wanted it for Boomershoot 2009. As near as we could tell we did not have a leak at the outlet pipe as I suspected:

I now suspect that the tile overflow was actually more of a bypass than an overflow. We put in several gallons of water that we know went into the barrel and will go back in a couple weeks and see if there is still water in it. If there is then I will just modify the inlet/overflow and fill up the hole again.

Also on my next on-site visit I will be taking the bulldozer over to enhance the shooters berm. It needs to be made deeper and a little wider.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:08:50 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Gun Rights | Politics )

Senator Ted Kennedy died yesterday.

Posts from gun bloggers on this topic:

Kennedy was a vehement foe of gun owners. I gave him a little slack because two of his brothers were murdered by people with guns. But he used that all up, and more, with his treatment of women in general and Kopechne in particular.

Update: More gun bloggers have something to say:

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:33:28 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

There is no constitutional right to carry a firearm. This is not even close on the constitutional scale — I have a right to carry a firearm wherever I go — it’s just not.

Jim Kessler
Of Third Way
August 25, 2009
Guns near Obama fuel 'open-carry' debate
[This is what I (and others, I forget where I originally saw it) call "Proof by vigorous assertion". It is most frequently used by two-year olds and in most cases is out-grown by age four. Mr. Kessler's development was apparently retarded.

The article claims Third Way is "the successor organization to the gun-control group Americans for Gun Safety" (see also the Wikipedia entry). It's nice that someone in the MSM (in this case MSNBC) is finally admitting AGS was anti-gun rather than an organization that intended to "promote responsible gun ownership". It's also interesting that if you go to the AGS Foundation website (http://www.agsfoundation.com/) you are redirected to Third Way and a pop-up informs you:

For current gun safety data and other information, we recommend the American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

For someone to simultaneously recommended AHSA with the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations tells you all you need to know about AHSA--unless you wanted to know how many members this "national grassroots organization has". According to their Wikipedia entry, in 2005, it was less than 150.--Joe]

# Tuesday, August 25, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:08:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Gun Fun | Gun Rights | Home Life )

A couple weeks ago I wrote about evidence that niece Lisa shared genes with me.

Today she applied for a concealed weapons permit.

Which reminds me. I never mentioned that at the last Boomershoot daughter Kim was stopped by the police while driving to Orofino. I think it was a headlight that was out...

Anyway, the police officer said nice things to Kim about having a concealed weapons permit.

I'm so proud of both of them.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:11:47 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

[The County should not] provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.

Mary King
July 20, 1999
Attributed to an Alameda County Press Release in plaintiff's brief.
[Reading the brief was enlighting to me. The case isn't really about a misguided attempt in "preventing crime" or accidental shootings. The county even admits that isn't the reason. It's about bigotry and deliberate repression of free expression. This gives me hope that the 9th circuit giving the case another look might not be about throwing out the 2nd Amendment incorporation finding.--Joe]

# Monday, August 24, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 11:43:32 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun | Gun Rights )

You've heard the 200 million guns in this country before, right? The anti-gun people fainted and after they woke up they told anyone that would listen there was approaching almost one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. We of course were concerned as well because that meant some of us weren't doing our part and buying enough guns to arm all the neighbors in case of a Zombie attack.

Alan points out that maybe the numbers were actually understated:

The lamestream media has been claiming for years and years there are about 200 million guns in America. With about 100 million sold in just the past decade, even the brain dead can tell the media is just parroting a number without doing any research. At the very least, they should up the numbers from time to time, no?

If I recall correctly the 200 million number is an estimate at least partially based on survey results. If so then people are going to under report the number of guns in their homes.

That would explain 100 million sold in the past decade when the destruction, loss, confiscation rate is certainly going to be far, far below that.

I'm feeling better now. When the Zombies attack I want a gun and a back up gun with lots of ammo available for everyone. It appears we have almost enough guns now and we can start stocking up on the ammo now.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 11:36:46 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics )

Alan Korwin has a really good post about the guy with the AR-15 in Arizona. As Alan lives in the area he knows a little more about the guy than the rest of us.

I just love the media interactions Alan had after the event:

Chicago’s WGN couldn’t believe we have the right to keep and bear arms out here. I had to tell them most places have RKBA, a surprise to them in their little cloister. “Do people shoot each other on the streets a lot?” They actually asked that. These folks aren’t in a bubble, they’re in a vacuum, they get nothing. “With your new guns-in-bars law, which has created quite a commotion here in Chicago, are there shootouts in bars?” I'm not making this up.

...

A Chicago caller to the show asks, “Well do you carry your golf clubs or exercise equipment into a restaurant?” This imbecile actually thinks he’s making sense. Gun ignorance has so blinded him, this is how he uses his 30 seconds of fame. I tell him of course I don’t. So he concludes, “See, you’re full of baloney,” and hangs up. He’s not even thinking rationally, and is convinced he’s right. Does he even know what the shooting sports are? I don't think so.

WGN mentions that in Chicago, NYC, and DC, where the major news orgs are based, this black-man-with-a-black-gun thing strikes them as stunning. Coincidentally these three cities are among the most repressive civil rights deniers in the nation -- and they have the gun-crime records to show for it. Guns are virtually banned for the innocent, yet armed criminals run around at will. But they cannot connect the dots.

So let me ask them. “Why aren’t the people who stole your rights arrested?”

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 11:09:50 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics )

Seattle Mayor Nickels is not only one of Bloomberg's mayors against guns but is very active on his own. He believes he is above the state preemption law on firearms. He even hinted he believe his city should be considered as a state it in the meeting with him at work that I attended. After he answered my question he went on to say the population of Seattle was just as large as entire states were at the time the colonies became a nation and as such justification to be able to make laws just as freely as a state made sense. And beyond that he said he would ban guns from city property, including parks and other public areas, by executive order. When gun rights groups referred to him as wanting to be a king they were right.

His Majesty got a taste of reality in the primary election last week with some help from Seattle gun owners:

Seattle gun owners can take much credit for the ouster of anti-gun Mayor Greg Nickels in this week’s primary election, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said this morning following what amounted to a concession speech at his press conference.

Nickels came in third in the city’s “Top Two” primary, signaling that voters in Seattle were fed up with his bully pulpit style, and perhaps more than anything, his arrogance, said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. No single episode has better underscored that haughtiness than the mayor’s open defiance of Washington State law that denied him the authority to set up the city’s own restrictive gun laws.

“When the mayor announced last year that he would ban legally-carried firearms from city property when he knew it would be contrary to the state’s preemption statute,” Gottlieb recalled, “it made tens of thousands of Seattle gun owners furious. Nickels insulted their intelligence by promising to ban guns by executive order, which is the height of municipal contempt for the rights of citizens under the state Constitution. He literally threw away their votes.”

CCRKBA Projects Director Thomas McKiddie, a West Seattle resident, said he and his gun-owning fellow Seattleites had simply had enough of the mayor’s condescension toward their rights to be safe on city streets, in parks and on other public property.

“I don’t know a single gun owner in Seattle who voted for Nickels,” McKiddie said. “After he threatened an executive order, he lost the nerve to actually issue one because he knew he would lose that fight in court. Instead, he included gun prohibitions in use contracts for the Seattle Center and other venues. He knew a citywide ban would be unenforceable, and his ouster demonstrates that Seattle gun owners were having none of it.”

“We hope this sends a signal to Nickels’ successor,” Gottlieb observed, “that stirring the wrath of gun owners is a mistake. This week’s primary result in Seattle should stand as a warning to other mayors who signed on with New York’s Michael Bloomberg to trample the firearms rights of their constituents.

“Mayors are not monarchs,” Gottlieb concluded. “They are not above the law. Greg Nickels is going to have a long time to think about that, as he watches this election season from the sidelines.”

As near as I can tell from the other candidates websites here and here guns weren't an issue in the campaign. My guess is they don't want them to be an issue either. If they say nothing more about them that would be fine with me.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 5:49:31 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights )

The Second Amendment Foundation announced today they have joined the Montana Shooting Sports Association in suing the Federal government to stop enforcing gun laws against guns and ammo that stays entirely within the state of Montana.

The article in the Missoulian elaborates:

That the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana is important, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the "interstate commerce clause," which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.

But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no "interstate commerce" and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.

Marbut said he'll planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he's received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but who aren't sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.

This makes perfect sense to anyone that hasn't read the Federal case law that came out of the 1930s (and since). But after hearing about the case law in which a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use was found to be engaging in Interstate commerce you realize we have a much higher hurdle to clear with this sort of lawsuit. That one case was just the beginning. There have been thousands of cases and laws built upon that one finding. How can a gun rights case find a niche in that "wall"?

Everyone I have talked to about this thinks the Firearms Freedom Acts (Montana and Tennessee so far) are only good for entertainment value. But SAF throwing it's weight behind this causes me some doubt. Sure, it makes great copy for fundraising. But so would a lot of other gun lawsuits that are lost causes. I've had a lot of "behind the scenes" conversations with the SAF people over the years and while I acknowledge fundraising is one of their objectives I know they are smart enough to not back a completely lost cause. Winning lawsuits is far better for fundraising than losing a case no matter how noble a cause.

Perhaps my email to Gottlieb's and my Senator, Patty Murray, convinced her to pull a few strings on her end in Washington as well.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 8:29:55 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom )

A couple months ago I suggested people buy their "assault knife" now because of proposed regulations that might make many folding pocket knives illegal.

I posted that I had just made my bulk purchase from The Blade Shop. In the comments people reported there were many people who had delivery and customer service problems with that particular outlet. I received my knives within a few days and thought that they had gotten their act together and that there was no need to be concerned.

That was two months ago.

Today I received this email from reader Ben:

I have read your blog for a long time now and very much appreciate your knowledgeable writing on firearms and explosives.

Several months ago you posted a snippet about how you picked up several knives from a place called The Blade Shop. Since I was in the market, I took your suggestion for the place to buy the knifes. I ended up ordering $165 in knives from them. It is now two months later and I have not receive anything except excuses.

After several weeks of not having received anything, including a status update on merchandise being back ordered I emailed them asking what was going on. They responded that one of the items was on back order and it would be a couple of weeks. After that deadline had come and gone I asked again. They said that item was still on back order. I asked to be refunded the money for that particular knife and send the rest on their merry way. The person at the other end said that they were going to refund the money and ship the others, but that it would take 10-14 days for the refund to go through. Now three weeks later I don't have a refund or any knifes.

I will be calling my credit card company today and asking for them to reverse the charges. They have a 2 month policy, thankfully I am a few days inside of that.

Please spread the word that at least some people are having difficult with this particular shop.

Thank you,

Ben

Rats.

Sorry about that.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 8:08:14 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

They used to say that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that conservatives thought liberals were stupid, and liberals thought conservatives were evil. Now it would seem they think conservatives are terrorists.

Sebastian
August 24, 2009
The Media’s Shallow Understanding
[I suspect it isn't really "shallow understanding". It's about attempting to demonize in any way possible those who oppose their agenda. People believe what they want to believe and anything that supports their belief system will be latched onto with far less fact checking than if it contradicted their belief system. I've been guilty of this too. But there have also been times when I thought (borrowing a literary tool from Say Uncle), "Self, this is too good to be true. You better check this out." And nearly every time it was too good to be true.

In the case of the present day "militia movement" I can't help but remember in the mid-90s I knew the names of several different militias both in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country. I read about them, by name, in the paper and heard about them in the social circles I communicated with. I saw their displays at gun shows. I occasionally even talked to member of militias. This time? The only "militia movement" I have heard about all traces back to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I think it's too good to be true for the left and they latched onto it without checking into it. Someone should check it out and, if my hunch is correct, slap them down. With appropriate timing and proper location it could be a good political tool.--Joe]

# Sunday, August 23, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:51:24 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Gun Fun | Technology | Work )

On Friday my officemate told me Kris had just stopped by and left something for me. I found a damaged Pocket PC with a note on it asking that I do an Idaho Stress Test on it. I contacted Kris via IM for more details. The screen had been damaged and was completely non-functional. There was company sensitive data on the device which needed to be destroyed and Kris wanted me to do this for him.

On Saturday daughter Kimberly and I went to the Boomershoot site and, among other things, destroyed the data for Kris. I also had a hard disk that was in similar need of "data reduction" and we deleted the data on both items at the same time.

Tomorrow I'll deliver the pieces Kim and I found to Kris but for the rest of you here are a few pictures assembled into a video:

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:31:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun | Quote of the Day )

Looks like Jackson Pollack threw up in here.

Tamara K.
August 24, 2008
Referring to all the previous use of Simunitions in the Blackwater 360 degree shoothouse.
[I want to do the "Blackwater thing" with all the gun bloggers again. That was really fun.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 22, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:19:05 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains )

Ry says, "facepalm". There are other phrases that could be used to describe the act of giving your attacker the ammunition to shoot at you with:

  • Dummer than dirt.
  • Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
  • Not the coldest ice cube in the tray.
  • Not the greenest tree in the Forest.
  • A few bricks shy of a load.
  • Head whistles when the wind blows.
  • A few clowns short of a circus.
  • A few fries short of a Happy Meal.
  • An experiment in Artificial Stupidity.
  • A few beers short of a six-pack.
  • Dumber than a box of hair.
  • A few peas short of a casserole.
  • The wheel's spinning, but the hamster's dead.
  • Has an IQ of 2, but it takes 3 to grunt.
  • Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
  • He fell out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
  • An intellect rivaled only by garden tools.
  • As smart as bait.
  • Chimney's clogged.
  • Forgot to pay his brain bill.
  • His antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.
  • His belt doesn't go through all the loops.
  • If he had another brain, it would be lonely.
  • No grain in the silo.
  • Receiver is off the hook.
  • Too much yardage between the goal posts.
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:15:37 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

As a strong supporter of the country's National Parks System, I just don't see a logical reason why anyone would want to carry a concealed weapon into such naturally beautiful places like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Redwoods, Crater Lake, Grand Teton or any of the national parks.

Is someone seriously afraid of being accosted or robbed by Old Faithful or El Capitan? Are there criminals hiding out in the Petrified Forest?

These places should be off limits to such practices because of the presence of children. Just because you have the right to pack heat on a vacation doesn't mean you should.

Chuck Bloom
Plano, Texas
... but what about the children?
August 21, 2009
[A extraordinary clear example of scrambled thinking on the gun issue. Perhaps the reason he doesn't see a logical reason for carrying a gun in the national parks is because he is severely logic impaired.

What does being "a strong supporter of the country's National Parks System" or their natural beauty have to do with concluding there is no "logical reason" to carry a concealed weapon?

Even his straw-men of "being accosted or robbed by Old Faithful or El Capitan" is extraordinarily weak.

Criminal do their thing where they have the opportunity, means, and high probability of accomplishing their goal. If their thing involves robbing or hurting people the remote location and disarmed status of their victims in the remote parks can be good hunting grounds. One does not have life insurance for only when their risk is high, such as when traveling by car. They have life insurance for all occasions. And so it is with carrying defensive tools. If you knew you were going to be attacked you wouldn't go there. But you don't know so you carry defensive tools wherever and whenever you can. And not all of the threats are human:


Sign in Glacier National Park


Bear in Glacier National Park.

And finally, "because of the presence of children"? Come on, can any anti-gun person offer a plausible defense for that statement? Do children not need to be defended against violent attacks? Is it better to let them be injured or killed than for them to see a bear get shot? Is it better for them to see their mother raped and/or killed than to see the attacker stopped in his tracks by a gun in the hands of his or her parents?

I actually did use my gun while hiking through a state park with my kids several years ago. There was a rattlesnake near the edge of the trail. It was a threat both to us and other hikers that perhaps would not have seen and avoided it. From a safe distance I put a 9mm FMJ bullet through it's head. The kids did not seem to have suffered any short or long term adverse effects from the use of the gun in their presence. They even seemed relieved after the threat was neutralized.--Joe]

# Friday, August 21, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 21, 2009 10:55:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Freedom | Gun Rights )

As pointed out by others MSNBC cropped the video of the black guy with a rifle at the Obama protest down enough to not show his skin color. Then they talked about gun owners being white racists against Obama.

I have to wonder what the basis for that belief was and why they would put effort into falsifying the evidence to fit their, obviously, false beliefs. Do they think they have some sort of telepathy such they can read the minds of others? Or is it as Say Uncle pointed out:

So, you were assigning stereotypes to a broad group of people? Supposedly trying to address bigotry in this country while being bigoted yourself seems to lessen your point. It’s OK, they’re only gun owners.

Although there are a people who believe they have telepathic powers I believe projection is far more common and all the evidence appears to fit that diagnosis.

Projection is very common in the anti-gun camp and it's one of the first thing you should look for when you encounter an anti-gun person. Do they say they are afraid of what someone might do if they carried a gun while at a school/church/restaurant/wherever? The evidence is overwhelming that people with guns in those places do nearly exactly the same things that other people without guns do in those places. It's actually their fear of what they might do if they had a gun in those places. Never mind that a police officer with a gun in the same location is just fine for nearly all of these people--disregarding the fact that police officers accidently shoot innocent people at a much higher rate than private citizens do.

So in this case the media representatives feel, without a factual basis, badly toward gun owners. They then search for something that could justify their bad feelings. Racism is an easy "hook to hang their hat on" since there once was a great deal of racism against people of color in this country and President Obama has the necessary pigmentation to be a target of white racists. But it's the feelings of the media that drove the conclusion that someone else must be racists rather than the evidence of racism that drove their feelings.

This can be generalized to freedom in general. People are afraid of making their own decisions and they attempt restrict others decisions via some "wiser" authority with the justification being that someone else might make a bad decision--regardless of the fact that government "one size fits all" decisions for nearly everything cost more and are less effective than private solutions. Hence because of their feelings of fear of their own decision making ability drove the demands that others not make decisions for themselves rather than actual fear of others making their own decisions.

I suppose another psychological model that could be applied is one of stress reduction. It's more stressful to believe that you are bigoted than to falsify the evidence to indicate someone else is bigoted.

In the case of the generalized freedom issue the stress reduction model works there too. It's impossible to predict the future in any detail so having someone else to blame for making the wrong decision relieves the stress of making the, possibly wrong, decision yourself--even if the situation of nearly everyone is worse than if they made their own decisions. It appears to be more stressful for many people to see a disparity of outcomes than for everyone to have the same bad outcome. As a friend, Susan K., told me many years ago there are people who would rather everyone earns $1.00/hour than for the minimum wage in a truly free market (no government imposed minimum wage) to be $100/hour if there were other people earning $10,000/hour. I found this hard to believe but I'm now convinced it is true as long as there is some method by which the person desiring this sort of outcome can put some sort of whitewash, such as using phrases such as "social justice", over the ugly truth.

As a side note I've heard it said that Bill Gates earned, on the average, about $100/second or $360K/hour while at Microsoft. This may have contributed to the great pressure put on Microsoft by the U.S. Justice Department during the 1990s and the European Union legal action that continues to this day.

Human psychology is a strange thing. What we call rational thought and socialization is only a very thin veneer over something far, far different which it pokes its ugly head through the veneer far more frequently than we realize.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 21, 2009 1:19:01 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

There are those who don't like Americans owning guns at all, let alone carrying them about. They can be counted on to run about squawking like Chicken Little that the sky is falling - a calamity brought about by the presence of an armed citizen in public. We are warned that: "Somebody might grab the gun and do something bad! The armed citizen will intimidate others! Tempers will flare and blood will run in the streets!"

These are the same alarms that are sounded when any measure designed to facilitate citizens keeping and bearing arms is advanced. And the alarms are always false. One would think that consistently being wrong would be embarrassing, but one would be wrong about those who assume that common citizens are untrustworthy and dangerous.

Larry Pratt
August 20, 2009
He Had a Gun and Nothing Happened
[Embarrassing? They have no shame, how could they be embarrassed? Their minds are locked into the reality of an alternate universe, sort of a Mirror, Mirror like place. And even though their concepts and assumptions are demonstrably false here they try to take over our universe. If we could just get Spock to transport them swap them back with their counterparts in the other universe things would be so much better.--Joe]

# Thursday, August 20, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:03:49 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Blog stuff | Gun Rights )

Late last night I got a link from Instapundit to my Did we just win? post. Early this morning I got a link to the same post from Say Uncle. A little bit later the same post was linked by Michael Bane.

Reynolds and Uncle were characteristically brief but Bane said something that was almost embarrassing to me:

Joe Huffman of The View From North Central Idaho and the majordomo of the Boomershoots has emerged as an important voice in the gun blogosphere, and I think today's column shows why...

I didn't think the post was all that strong. I was pushing the envelope with it. I really was overstating things some. I knew it, but figured I could put up a plausible defense of it if I really had to.

But regardless of how shaky the ground I was on something on the order of 7000 (adding a "fudge factor" for the RSS readers which don't show up on Sitemeter) people read it in a single day. The day isn't quite over yet and here are the numbers compared to a typical day of about 600 visits:

I've spoke about gun rights before crowds of 500 to 700 before. That was a little intimidating but I was very well prepared and confidant of my material. But a crowd of 7000?

It kinda cool that 7000 people in one day read at least a sentence or two of something I wrote. But it's also kinda...well different. I grew up on a farm and went to two room grade school nearby that had eight grades for a total of about 30 kids. I didn't have a lot of social contact until I went to a high school where I was in the biggest class ever (the record still holds) which was 125 graduating seniors. The entire town of Orofino, at it's peak, was only about 3500 people. Yet, twice that many people in a single day read what I wrote and a well known (in some circles) T.V. personality says I'm "an important voice in the gun blogosphere". Wow. As Sebastian said while I was writing this, I'm just another guy with an opinion.

I think maybe I should be more careful of what I write.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:24:31 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Gun Fun )

If you ever heard me say I was working on an iPhone killer this wasn't what I meant:

I wouldn't do that.

I would perform an Idaho Stress Test instead.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:01:32 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

Carrying a gun to a political meeting is an obscenity. Anyone who does it, even if they are within their legal rights, should be ashamed. Our founders fought a revolution (and, yes, took up arms) to build a society where political disputes are not settled through force or intimidation--and that's the only purpose of bringing a weapon to a political discussion: to intimidate.

It is utterly unacceptable, and every politician should have the guts to say so.

Rick Perlstein
August 18, 2009
Outlook: In America, Crazy Is a Pre-existing Condition
' ... the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy ...'

[Just so you know what they think of you.

I wonder what he thinks of the White House response--that open carry at political events is no big deal. Does he think President Obama has no guts?

I think he may have just had the wind sucked out of his sails.--Joe]

# Wednesday, August 19, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:22:04 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Gun Rights | Politics )

We've known for several years (see posts here, here, here, and here) that we were winning on the gun control battlefield. The expiration of the "assault weapon" ban and the Heller decision were just the two best known battles. There were thousands, perhaps millions if you count the wins of the hearts and minds of neighbors, friends, relatives, and co-workers.

I recognize open carry is on the path to victory but I figured it would be in the form of open carry at picnics, highway litter cleanup, and maybe as an organization at parades. People need to be desensitized to gun ownership. And concealed carry just doesn't help that much. When and how we do that desensitization can matter a great deal.

I've been open carrying in a few circumstances for a couple months now (here and here). There has been no obvious notice taken and certainly no adverse effects have occurred. Yet, had anyone asked my advice about open carry at a political protest about the nationalization of health care I would have told them I didn't see any good could come out of it. Obviously these people didn't ask for my advice or take similar advice from someone else.

In my opinion these people took a huge risk. They were throwing the dice in a game that affected tens of millions of people in this country. I'm not exactly risk adverse, after all I play with explosives for the fun of it and even have my children help make the explosives. But I wouldn't have taken the risk they did.

And what happened? It's as if we had been slowly advancing against the enemy. We were a little surprised to win the battle on carry in National Parks and we almost won a battle for nationwide reciprocity we couldn't have imagined even coming up for a vote had we thought about it after the election last November. But the enemy was still putting up resistance and we thought they were still formidable opponents. Then they collapsed. The White House (or Red Shed as a commenter recently called it) said it was no big deal to open carry. Public opinion is affected by statements from the White House. Having the most anti-gun administration in U.S. history say it's no big deal to open carry is huge.

We knew recent poll results showed us winning. But I thought that would take time to translate into our enemies fleeing before us. But it appears now that the brave actions of a few open carry advocates broke through the empty shell of the anti-gun organizations and there are going to be a lot of Sad Pandas tonight and people looking at their bottles of cheap rum.

Now, more than ever, we have a chance to push these bigots into political extinction. When they are on the run they have their backs to us and cannot organize and put up effective resistance. We need to acquire the proper state of mind and pound them as hard as we can as fast as we can. There are still pockets of resistance in New Jersey, Chicago, California, etc. but we may have just won the war.

Update: This post just got linked to by Glenn Reynolds. I would like to suggest my new visitors also look at some of my other posts:

Thanks visiting.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:16:23 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The Fulton case demonstrates an important consequence of Heller’s individual right holding: the normalization of firearms possession. In the past sometimes treated as a deviant act, something not to be permitted without the indulgence of the sovereign, firearms possession is now something contemplated by the Constitution--something not deviant, but normal, with the burden shifting from those who would possess firearms to those who would deny their possession. This burden-shift may turn out to be the most consequential result of Heller, at least in the day-to-day work of state and federal courts.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[I wouldn't normally quote the same person (or people) two or more days in a row. But this is a special day and this quote is very applicable because of this and other indicators that open carry of firearms is being accepted. If open carry of firearms is accepted then that means firearms ownership in general is more acceptable.

See also my post from last night and this followup post.--Joe]

# Tuesday, August 18, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:33:39 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

I read the headline and article before seeing Dave Hardy's blog post and I've been wandering around my underground bunker doing a few household chores and I tried to get my mind around what this means.

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with Dave, but I can't say that I disagree when he says, "Time for Brady Campaign employees to circulate resumes" in response to the Washington Post running a headline that says, "White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events".

Maybe after I sleep on it overnight I'll have something of my own to say.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:15:23 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

This surprised me:

He added that the Orange County couple's ultimate goal is an initiative to divide California into two states - one of which would recognize the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry.

I've heard, many times, that most of California, geographically, is pro-gun. If they could just get rid of the big population centers the place would be politically tolerable. It seems both sides (I acknowledge not all gays are anti-gun, but there is a strong correlation) want a divorce.

California having such a huge population has a large influence on great number of things nationwide. Presidential elections might be the most obvious but there are thousands of other things as well. The contents of school books, safety standards, air pollution standards, and even gun laws that first show up in California have a nasty habit of spreading to other states. If there were two states where their used to be only one that influence would diminish.

I wonder what we can do to encourage such a separation.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:07:13 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights )

I received an email from Rob B. that articulated some half-congealed thoughts of my own:

I consider it a “sin” to destroy operable items. This goes for the weapons destroyed and the Cash for Klunkers victims.

Certainly there is the occasional firearm that needs to be removed from circulation due to poor and irreparable condition or unsafe design or modifications. Certainly there are vehicles which are much the same.

This isn’t about that.

This is about materials made by the labor of man, which cost some fraction of man’s treasure to obtain being destroyed because they are unpopular.

This is roughly equivalent to burning books.

Destroying something made by the labor of an individual (or group of them) destroys some small portion of life, for that person (or group) spent their time and energy (life) making it.

Destroying anything useful diminishes the overall value pool.

This is not good, particularly when done for light, transitory or fallacious reasons.

Simply put, this is wrong.

Rob

Sebastian has a different opinion:

My only moral problem with the programs is that it entices people to turn in items that have significant historical value, which are then destroyed and lost for history. If anti-gun groups and big city politicians want to raise the market floor on junk guns, I have no real problem. It’s their money, and I’d rather than dump it into worthless, feel good programs like this than actually use it to challenge gun rights.

Sebastian is a little ambiguous about who's money is involved that he is okay with. If it's anti-gun groups, then I don't have much problem with it--other than that articulated by Rob. But if it's tax payer money then I do have a problem with it. This would be a lot like tax money, paid by blacks, being used for schools that teach blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to hold public office or vote. Or tax money used to buy and destroy private libraries and churches. It is the government taking money from you to enforce a restriction on your specific enumerated rights.

We have long known the anti-gun people won't win any prizes for their logic skills and destroying guns is just one more example. If there were a limited supply such as moon rocks or members of an endangered species then firearm destruction would have some significance from a reduction of supply standpoint. But guns aren't like that. The best they can hope for is to raise the price on used guns, but $50 or $100 as a market floor just doesn't do anything significant other than increase the likelihood that someone will get into the business of stealing guns (a "no questions asked" market for stolen goods reduces the total risk).

So one has to conclude the gun-buy backs are advocated by people that have one or more of the following characteristics:

  • Willing to use tax money to demonize and restrict the exercise of a specific enumerated right
  • Irrational
  • Desirous of increased theft of firearms

Did I miss any?

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:46:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Politics )

I normally probably wouldn't have posted this. But after completing New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America it's particularly relevant. The work programs of the 1930s were used as political tools to not only get votes but to punish those that weren't "good Democrats" (I'm increasingly of the opinion that is an oxymoronic phrase).

In some cases when you called the phone number to get a Federal job the call went to the local Democratic headquarters. To get the job you had to be interviewed by them and demonstrate your party loyalty. In some cases up to 3% of your pay had to be given to the party.

Take your blood pressure meds then read the book.

Via email from Joe D.

When the Feds delivered the stimulus package they probably didn't think that "package" would be interpreted in this manner.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:15:02 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Political scientists and law professors alike have written extensively on signaling and agenda-setting by the Supreme Court. Despite being dicta—the issues mentioned were not before the Court and were not necessary to resolve those that were before it—the Heller safe harbor seems to us to have been a clear signal, clearer perhaps than any sent in Lopez, that lower courts should not declare open season on any and all federal gun laws. It seems to us that the lower courts have certainly heeded this signal.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms pages 15-16.
[H/T to Say Uncle.

That's the bad news, which I already knew even from my limited legal viewpoint. There is good news in part III of the paper. Much of it was new to me.--Joe]

# Monday, August 17, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 17, 2009 11:33:32 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Sex )

It's not exactly a research paper with lots of data but it is a plausible hypothesis:

One of the most intimate forms of loving, it’s far from unsexy. When it comes to excreting buckets of moisture from your skin, wetter can be better. While many would wrinkle their noses at the notion of an antiperspirant meltdown, the action it can inspire captures sexy in its most animalistic form.

...

So who would’ve thought sweaty sex could be sexy and good for you? There are a number of benefits to working up a sweat; provided you both have a clean bill of health and you stay hydrated.

Sweaty sex:

— Means more calories and fat are being burned during a vigorous sex session;
— Allows for more slithery sex as your bodies slide all over one another;
— Makes for a body suctioning effect that enhances feelings of “we’re one” during sex;
— Offers new sensations that appease our need for variety, like salty kisses;
— Puts a twist in your routine as it taps into your inner instinct of raw, uninhibited sex;
— Can have the two of you resembling the wet sleekness of “Sports Illustrated” swimsuit models, with slicked back hair or shiny skin;
— Releases more of our natural scents, particularly those around the groin, which can be an aphrodisiac, even if on a subconscious level.

I'll put it on Dr. Joe's list of things that need further first hand (so to speak) research.

I'd tell you which blogger this reminds me of because she very recently mentioned both sex and a sweaty experience on her blog--but then I would have to kill myself.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 17, 2009 6:24:21 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun | Quote of the Day )

Will more .38 Supers show up next year? Is the .45ACP now obsolete? In a nut shell, no. The .45 will continue to dominate. The cost of shooting a .38 Super loaded to make major caliber are astronomical. The brass is only good for one loading due to the pressures that swell the web. The beating the gun takes drastically reduces gun life compared to that of a .45.

Cameron Hopkins
American Handgunner
May/June 1985, p. 54
[FYI, nearly 25 years after writing the above Hopkins is still writing.

Just another reminder for myself.

It's risky to make predictions. I do it anyway and I'm reckless enough to sometimes put the predictions in writing. You would think that seeing the colossal failures of others that do this would be warning enough--but apparently it is not.--Joe]

# Sunday, August 16, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:58:54 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun | Gun Rights )

A friend of Barb's and mine for over twenty years contacted me recently and asked to take me up on my offer to teach her to shoot. We went to Wades this afternoon. I had her shooting my Ruger Mark II. It has a six inch bull barrel and her arms got tired quickly. I went back out to the front desk and utilized my "free rental" (comes with being a member) for a Browning Buck Mark. It was much lighter and she did better.

At about 10 feet nearly all of her shots were within the black. After about 20 rounds she told me, "Maybe I should buy a gun." I said we could talk about it after we got outside. I did a little bit of shooting with the Buck Mark and my Gun Blog 45 then we left.

In the parking lot I asked her about why she wanted a gun. The answer was the economy is probably going to get worse and Obama may make it difficult to get a gun. She wanted a gun to be able to protect herself and her youngest daughter who lives with her. She asked how much a gun costs and if a .22 would be okay for her needs. I suggested she should practice some more and try to get the strength to be able to shoot something a little bigger. But, the most important selection criteria was that she feel comfortable shooting it. If that means a .22 then that would be best for her.

I emailed her a link to this class which would let her shoot a number of guns as well as cover other important issues of gun ownership such as self-defense legal issues. She responded with:

I will sign up the class with my brother.

...

Thank you so much for teaching me. You are a great teacher. ...you can post the comment to the blog too. :)

We are winning the gun rights issue one new shooter at a time.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:17:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( A Security Theater | Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day | Technology )

Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran's surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China's electronic police state. Twitter's anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents -- anonymity that many governments want to eliminate.

Every year brings more Internet censorship and control -- not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries.

The control movement is egged on by both law enforcement, trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals, and by media companies, trying to stop file sharers.

It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. No matter what the eavesdroppers and censors say, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.

Bruce Schneier
August 3, 2009
Building in Surveillance
[Schneier doesn't mention this but the concept of "bad civic hygiene" has wider application than just surveillance technology. It also applies to the TSA, gun control, and even government provided health care (do you want health care decisions for gays made by people like Fred Phelps--or vice versa?). It's another way of expressing concern about failures of my Jews In The Attic Test.

Some people have a lot of concern about Microsoft contributing to this sort of thing. I have been, and am, involved in projects that have the potential to cause concern. I have been very pleased to see that not only the corporate policy is appropriate to protect innocents but also the attitude of the people I work with is on par with my standards in this regard.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 15, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:49:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Home Life | Quote of the Day )

I want to go break the law.

Barbara Scott
August 14, 2009
When she heard of the law (essentially) banning children's books printed before 1985.
Link courtesy Say Uncle and Sebastian.
[I, of course, immediately thought of the quote by the character Jayne Cobb in Firefly, "Shiny. Let's be bad guys."--Joe]

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 15, 2009 5:28:51 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

Whenever I get a chance to ask anti-gun people questions in public I do my best to take advantage of it.

People in the Indianapolis area have their chance today:

INDIANAPOLIS - Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a former Fort Wayne mayor, plans to speak in Indianapolis on Saturday.

Helmke is scheduled to speak on what he calls weak guns laws in Indiana and the nation at the Lecture Hall building on the campus of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis beginning at 6 p.m. The event is being sponsored by a group called Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence.

Helmke says a recent Brady Center analysis of crime data shows that Indiana ranks fifth in the nation in the number of crime guns exported to other states. He says Indiana also ranks fourth in its per-capita rate of total crime gun sales.

If you go then dress appropriately, be polite, and leave your tin-foil hat at home.

# Friday, August 14, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 14, 2009 8:28:03 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

I like to imagine that once we reach some critical threshold in the courts the victories will be almost automatic and our opponents will scatter like rabbits at the sight of a large predator. It may be true that we reach that point but we aren't there yet:

The latest example is a decision late Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which said that a criminal defendant may not be allowed to present a Second Amendment defense to a federal jury in Utah. It came after the appeals court granted an extraordinary emergency appeal, called a writ of mandamus, from the Justice Department after the district judge agreed to allow those jury instructions.

The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." He has pleaded not guilty.

(The prosecution arose when Engstrum broke up with his girlfriend, who subsequently told police that he had a gun in his bedroom. Engstrum voluntarily showed police the gun, which he inherited from his father; there's no evidence he has ever used the firearm, let alone threatened anyone with it.)

Engstrum, reasonably, wanted to argue to the jury that the Second Amendment renders that law invalid, at least when applied to people who show no risk of future violence. (Remember, this is a Utah jury, which raises the odds that jurors are familiar with the right to keep and bear arms, and may even have heard of the concept of jury nullification.)

The Justice Department rejected this idea out of hand. By a 2-1 margin, a Tenth Circuit panel agreed, concluded that the Second Amendment didn't apply, and prohibited those jury instructions. "If the case proceeds to trial, the district court is directed not to instruct the jury on this Second Amendment defense, including not giving the proposed jury instruction," they wrote.

The defense isn't allowed to even bring up the Second Amendment.

We need incorporation and then we need to attack a whole barge load of infringements one tiny step at a time. The Heller decision was just the tiniest of steps in the right direction.

There is a lot of work ahead of us.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 14, 2009 7:12:44 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The VPC and Freedom States crowd would have us all believe that every armed citizen is just like George Sodini, and that he is like all of us; a killer waiting to strike.

While they are loathe to admit it, there is really no difference between gun bigots and racial or religious bigots. One form of class hatred is no less divisive than another.

Dave Workman
August 7, 2009
New anti-gun strategy: Demonize CCW holders
[The bigot meme is getting more visible. Although I can't take any credit for bringing Workman up to speed on it. Alan Gottlieb and he were the ones who first infected me.--Joe]

# Thursday, August 13, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:03:14 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights )

If I were to tell you that everything you needed to know about guns could be learned from T.V. shows and the movies you would, and rightly so, tell me I was full of crap. If I went even further and said you could learn what you needed to know about carrying guns in public from watching an ad for a video game you would, and rightly so, consider calling the guys from the funny farm.

It's very clear that the Joyce Foundation needs to put more effort into making sure their guy is taking his meds. Because he just said:

This is without a doubt the embodiment of the gun lobby's dangerous and irresponsible myth: that an "armed society is a polite society."

But this old XBOX advertisement that was banned several years ago shows the complete opposite. Depending on your worldview and experience, viewers will undoubtedly have many different responses to this video. But we think it makes a dramatic and cogent argument for keeping all guns -- concealed or openly carried -- out of our public spaces.

Can anyone demonstrate where even a hint of this type of thing has ever happened? We have millions of people legally carrying guns in public each day and this type of thing has never happened. Not even close--except in his hallucinations. And he thinks it makes a "cogent argument"?

Wow. Did he get his logic training from a comic book?

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:57:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights )

Interesting post here about the Firearms Freedom Acts (such as in Montana and Tennessee) and concludes:

While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

I'm not sure comparison can be made to the Real ID Act. The Real ID Act was impractical to implement (as well as being useless), had to be done by the states, and the states among other things said we aren't doing it unless you give us a LOT more money. Defying Federal firearms laws requires a win in the courts or use of force against Federal law enforcement. Neither of which I see as very likely.

I agree with the goal, I'm just not convinced it will work unless there were a large number of states that went along with it. In which case a Constitutional Amendment would be feasible.

I suppose you could think of it as a form of communication to the Feds saying, "Back off" or as a symbolic middle finger. Which has it's value. But mostly I just see it as having entertainment value.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:13:13 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

This guy apparently wanted free room and board at tax payer expense so yesterday he, indirectly, requested the local police transport him to his new accommodations:

According to information from the Birmingham Police Department, the Birmingham Police 911 Communications Center received a call about 7:00am CT Wednesday, August 12, 2009, from a man stating his intent to kill a Birmingham Police Officer.

The man called the officer by name and further stated that if he could not find that officer, he would kill every Birmingham Police Officer until he found that particular officer.
Detectives gathered information received by the communications center and later identified the caller as the suspect Marlon Simmons.

After obtaining a warrant for the subject, the Birmingham Police Crime Reduction Team (CRT) located the subject at his home at 7232 2nd Avenue North.

The subject was taken into custody without incident, but was found to have a rifle and handgun in his possession.

Nothing particularly blog-worthy there but what is interesting to me is the following:

While executing the search warrant investigators recovered an SKS type rifle, AR-15 rifle, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun, hobby cord (fuse), body armor, and assorted ammunition.

According to ATF Agents the shotgun was illegal due to its magazine capacity that is between 10 to 20 shotgun shells.

Huh? There is a Federal law on shotgun magazine capacity? Sure, if it is a "Street Sweeper" or some other specific shotgun with a scary name or looks I know the U.S. Attorney General declared them "destructive device" and got them banned. But the above article sounds a little more generic than that. So doing a little more research I came up with this, an ATF letter stating (emphasis added):

A shotgun with a telescoping stock or a magazine greater than 5 rounds is prohibited from importation into the United States under the provisions of section 925(d)(3) of Title 18, United states code (U.S.C.). Assembly of such a shotgun from imported parts is prohibited under 18, U.S.C. Section 922(r). The implementing regulations in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 478, Section 478.39 (formerly Part 178, Section 178.39) prohibit assembly of such a shotgun that contains more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of the regulation. Please see the enclosed brochure for further information. Assembly of such a shotgun using 10 or less of the listed import parts is not prohibited. The shotgun is also subject to whatever State laws and local ordinances may apply.

I've looked up all the Title 18 and 27, section and subsection mumbo-jumbo and was unable to find any references to a five, or any other number, round limit. Did I just miss it? Or did the AG make a declaration that anything over five rounds was "not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes"?

I've sent a couple emails out to lawyers to see if I can get this clarified.

Update: My lawyer friend Mike came back with the answer:

This has to do with the import ban on "assault weapons" first put in by (former) NRA member George H.W. Bush in 1989. Under the GCA, the Secretary (now the AG) can bar importation of firearms that are not "particularly suitable for sporting purposes". The import ban made a list of "assault weapons" unimportable per se. The 10 parts rule is contained in the reg cited. I remember that it was popular for a while to buy an American made Fal receiver and assemble it with 9 foreign parts.

The original AWB in 1994 had the following definition:

Section 921. Definitions
      (a) As used in this chapter -
                    (30) The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means -
       
                (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
          (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
          (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
        action of the weapon;
          (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
          (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

After the AWB ban expired in 2004 the ATF kept the definition in their policies to determine what is "particularly suitable for sporting purposes":

Nonsporting Firearms – such as handguns which do not meet the sporting purpose criteria on ATF Form 4590, any rifle or shotgun with a folding stock or folding bayonet, and shotguns having a fixed magazine with a capacity of more than 5 cartridges and certain military style semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

I think we have another opportunity for our congress critters to do some reform on our gun laws in the form of an amendment to some "must pass" legislation. In light of the Heller decision the "sporting purposes" definition needs to go. The Second Amendment isn't about "sporting purposes".

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:16:22 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

My STI Eagle 5.1 is in need of repairs. There was the thumb safety which I still hadn't fixed even though I had the new safety in hand. It requires some fitting and I just hadn't taken the time to go to the farm where all the good tools are.

I also had purchased a RecoilMaster nearly two years ago and found it didn't fit right. My gun is old enough that some milling needed to be done before it could be installed. Newer STIs come from the factory in a configuration where you can just drop the RecoilMaster in. I had never followed through to get the work done.

But my biggest concern was that the hammer, on two occasions in about 300 rounds, followed the slide. Requiring the hammer to be manual cocked before it would fire. I'm a little surprised it didn't "double" on me. After the first time I inspected and cleaned the gun. I couldn't find anything wrong and I tried to duplicate the problem manually, without ammo, and could not. Okay, maybe the auto-disconnecter was dirty enough that something didn't work right. The gun is clean now so maybe the problem has gone away. Shortly after saying that the problem happened again.

The gunsmith that built the gun for me is no longer in business so I asked the guy behind the counter at Wades if their gunsmith would have a reasonable turn around time. It turns out they don't really have a "gunsmith" on staff. They have an "armorer". The difference being the armorer doesn't do work that involves milling or other major metal moving. So I went to the website of a gunsmith I know in Idaho. Shawn Carlock is an USPSA shooter and I was pretty sure he did pistol work. I couldn't find reference to it on his website. There was lots of info about rifle work but nothing about pistols. I called him up and he told me they stopped working on pistols and shotguns about three years ago. Bummer.

I asked around for some recommendations and called up a couple guys.

As I was explaining the work I wanted done to the first guy he asked, "What type of gun is it again?" "It's an STI", I told him. "Oh, a Stye", he said. He pronounced as a word like the eyelid infection. After a few seconds he interrupted me to ask, "Is that like a Colt?" "Uhhh... yeah. Except Colts are called 1911's and this is called a 2011 and has a grip wide enough to take double stack magazines." At this point I was pretty sure I wanted to get someone else but I asked him what his turn around time would be. He said he could get started on it right away and could have it back to me in a couple days.

I talked to the second guy and he was familiar with STIs in general although not the Eagle 5.1. I asked him for his turnaround time and he said he was currently quoting sometime in November. Ouch.

I called up STI thinking that it would probably be expensive getting the work done at the factory but maybe they could recommend a gunsmith in my area of operation. I talked to Bobby in "Warranty" who said turn around time was usually five to seven business days but currently he was essentially all caught up and they had him working in production part of the time. How much is this going to cost me? This gun is over 10 years old and can't possibly be considered still in warranty. It turns out it will (most likely) just cost me the shipping cost of the gun to Texas. Wow!

The shipping isn't cheap. I'm not sure who made the rule but handguns require overnight shipping and with the additional insurance the total was $77.55. The gun arrived at the STI factory yesterday. I'm hoping to have it back by next weekend.

I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:03:28 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

I'll bet you thought you lived in the United States of the Framer's dreams, didn't you? ...As long as you bear in mind that "nightmares" is a subset of "dreams," you're right, too.

There's not a current or former Congresscritter, except maybe Ron Paul, who ought not be brought up on charges of treason and/or offenses against persons, be given a perfectly fair trial and be imprisoned for life at the very least. The Executive branch is equally culpable. Not gonna happen but hey, a gal can still dream, right? They haven't made that a Thoughtcrime yet, have they? Have they?

Roberta X.
August 12, 2009
James Madison Calling
[Read the Madison quote in her post for context.

I don't know if Roberta independently arrived at the same conclusion but I've suggested the treason idea before too. Great minds think alike, we share the same delusion, or something.--Joe]

# Wednesday, August 12, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:01:36 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life )

Son James and daughter Kim invited Barb and me to go out to dinner tonight before Kim headed back to Idaho tomorrow morning. They said it was a late birthday dinner for Kim with James since he wasn't in Idaho when everyone else celebrated Kim's birthday last month.

It turns out there was another beautiful woman at the table with James when we arrived. And James and this young woman were making a lot of physical contact at the table. We were introduced to Kelsey--James' girlfriend. It turns out Kim, Xenia, and even Lisa had known about her for some time now. That explains why Kim and Xenia were putting up so much resistance to my plan to introduce James to the new team member at work I'm mentoring. Barb had plans to introduce him to the woman Kim calls "The Boomershoot Girl" who I would have found acceptable as well. But James found someone without his parents help. It is sometimes a surprise to parents that there comes a time when you don't have wipe their nose, hold their hand with crossing the street, and checking out who they socialize with.

Kelsey appears to be very bright and socially adept. James needs someone super smart in order to hold his interest and respect.

Barb and I are very pleased with his choice.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:57:27 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Blog stuff | Crap for brains )

There has to be more to this query than is in the search terms. I can't believe someone is so stupid to ask a question like, "Does the actual bullet go in you"?

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   75.159.210.# (Telus Communications)
ISP   Telus Communications
Location  
Continent  :  Unknown
Country  :  Unknown
Lat/Long  :  unknown
Language   English (Canada)
en-ca
Operating System   Microsoft WinNT
Browser   Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1440 x 900
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Aug 12 2009 3:01:08 pm
Last Page View   Aug 12 2009 3:01:08 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.ca...et go in you&spell=1
Search Engine google.ca
Search Words does the actual bullet go in you
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/03/WhereDoesTheBulletGo.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/03/WhereDoesTheBulletGo.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-7:00
Visitor's Time   Aug 12 2009 4:01:08 pm
Visit Number   564,176

 

I keep thinking of ways at demonstrating the answer in ways that would prove Darwin correct but unfortunately involve illegal acts.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:41:48 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Freedom )

Playing with explosives can be a lot of fun. But don't be stupid.

I don't know for certain but that what this appears to be:

Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents continue to investigate an explosion in Harrison County on the morning of Aug. 1.

Bryan Byrne, a sergeant with the Harrison County Sheriff's Department, said multiple calls came in to Harrison County Dispatch reporting an explosion that shook houses and rattled windows in the area.

An ATF agent sent to the scene collected evidence from a blast area near Baker Hollow Road. The area where the explosion took place measured about 50 feet in diameter, with trees in the vicinity charred as high as 15 feet.

Kathy Goldman, wife of Harrison County Commissioner James Goldman, told her husband she thought a liquid propane tank had exploded.

The Goldmans live about a quarter of a mile from the site of the blast.

"I wasn't home, but my wife was. It scared her to death," James Goldman said. "It was a pretty strong explosion."

He said an ATF agent from Louisville took a sample of the ground and sent it to Washington to be tested. From what he could tell, Goldman said it appeared to be a homemade bomb made in a plastic five-gallon bucket.

If you are going to be detonating things that make house rattle then get the permission of the land owner and you might want to call the cops yourself, before someone else does. Even if no law was broken or property damaged it wastes a lot of time and money of the cops. If they find out it was you they are going to make your life miserable just because they would rather be eating donuts, writing tickets to increase government revenue, or inspecting the local strip club for touching violations.

When people do stupid stuff some nanny statists will use it as an excuse to attempt preventing people from doing something stupid. And that makes me rather grumpy. You won't like me if I get too grumpy.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:29:14 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Quote of the Day )

The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.

Milton Friedman
[As we enter another Great Depression keep that in mind. And also keep in mind that FDR and his complete lack of understanding of economics which extended the depression created by the high tariffs under the Hoover administration--who "Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking".

FDR insisting on extremely high taxes for the rich and frequent changing of the law created great uncertainity for investors. It was the death of FDR and Truman's friendly attitude to business that finally brought the country out of the depression.

Read New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America for the details.--Joe]

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:04:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics )

In my continuing frustration with Republicans, I decided to go directly to Sarah Palin's official website.  We've all heard (or rather witnessed-- no one seems to have actually heard anything real to back it up) the enthusiastic support for Palin.

I have yet to hear anything of substance from Palin, so where better to go than directly to the source?  Surely if there's anything there it will be in her very own web site, in her very own words;

What is SarahPac?

SarahPac is a federally registered political action committee that supports Gov. Sarah Palin's plans to build a better, stronger, and safer America in the 21st century.

Great!  How?  No answer.  "Safer America"?  Safer from what-- corporate greed, or socialist greed?  Asteroids?  Jihadists?  Anti-Americanism in our own ranks?  No answer.  "...in the 21st Century"?  Cool.  So maybe that undefined "better" America will materialize before my great grandkids die of old age then.

How will contributions be spent?

Your support of SarahPac will make it possible for Gov. Palin to continue to be a strong voice for energy independence and reform.

Any run-of-the-mill Democrat might have said the same thing.  Energy independence, how-- by deregulating oil exploration and drilling, or by "weaning us off our addiction" to oil?  Could be either.  Doesn't say.
By supporting SarahPac, you will allow Gov. Palin to help find and create solutions for America's most pressing problems;
"Find" solutions?  Conservatives already have them.
...priority number one is building a strong and prosperous economy that recognizes hard work, innovation and integrity by rewarding small businesses and hard working American families.
I think that's called a "free market".  Otherwise; how many of you want to be "built" by the government, or want the government to "recognize" or "reward" you?
SarahPac will support local and national candidates who share Gov. Palin's ideas and goals for our country.

And those ideas are..?  Or haven't you "found" them yet?

Who is behind SarahPac?

Gov. Sarah Palin believes all Americans must work together for the future, regardless of their party affiliation.

Again; could have been said by any run-of-the-mill Democrat/Progressive, including Marx or Lenin.  "Must work together"?  Toward what?  Or else what?  "For the future"?  What sort of future?  Since when has "the future" been a goal we "must work" for?  The future is coming no matter what it holds.  What, Sarah, do you want for the future?  Say it loud and proud!  Say something!  Anything!

Gov. Palin is the honorary chair of SarahPac, and its supporters are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those unaffiliated with any political party.

So I'm sure the Democrat "Borking" machine is now going to shower you with love and adoration then, right?  Now that you're all unaffiliated and stuff?

Why now?

No; it's what now?  Tell us What you want to do.

As a new president takes office and begins to lead our country..

The president's job is to lead Congress and command the military, not the country.  How many of you want to be lead, verses, say, left the hell alone?

...Gov. Palin believes that every one of us has a duty and responsibility in this time of economic crisis and international challenge.

We have a duty and a responsibility to do what, exactly?  Would that be to roll over and play nicey nice in the face of encroaching socialism that threatens to tear apart the republic, or stand up and fight it tooth and nail?  Which?  Can't decide?  Still looking for ideas?  Still haven't found them?  Oh look!  A pony!

Each one of us must step up to the plate, get involved in the spirit of renaissance and renewal that is critical to America's success.

Again; all politicians, from the best to the very worst, talk just like that.  There's nothing there.  Thousand points of light.  Great Society.  Bridge to the 21st Century, Thousand Year Reich, Renaissance and Renewal, Hope and Change, blah, blah, blah, (gag) (puke).  How about Puppies and Unicorns?  Hey, yeah.  Everybody likes puppies and unicorns.  Lets use that.  The ignorant masses will love it.  Yes We Can!

Make your voice heard by joining SarahPac today!

Some will say she's crazy like a fox-- that she has this super-duper, duper...duper plan (that no one's ever heard-- ever) and that once she gets a goin'  by golly gee whizz, Katy bar the door!  I'm not holding my breath.  I say she's a Republican.

Sorry; it's just that, assuming words mean things, it's amazing how little meaning can exist in so many words.  Yes I'm being very hard on her, but we've seen this vacuous crap all too often.

# Tuesday, August 11, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:11:41 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

A report on guns on campus after one year.

What? No professors shot for not giving someone the grade they thought they deserved? No shooting demonstrations at the keggers?

Nope. Everything is pretty much the same, including the gun-grabbers still refuse to acknowledge the obvious solution to, and contributing cause of, school shootings:

One year ago, David Thweatt made a decision so controversial and groundbreaking the story about it sped around the world.

The superintendent of the isolated Harrold Independent School District, about 30 miles northwest of here, made history last August when he and his school board decided to allow select teachers and staff members at the 110-student school to carry guns on campus — a first for Texas and the nation.

...

“Would you stick a sign at a school that says, ‘No guns on this property’? Why wouldn’t you? It invites nasty people to come,” he said. “That’s what you’ve done to every public school in the nation. That’s why there were no shootings until Columbine. It’s turned into a dad-gum shoot fest.”

...

When a London reporter asked Thweatt to explain why so many kooks go into schools looking for a body count, Thweatt said he couldn’t explain such a devolution of society, but he did know a simple way to stop it — the same solution he chose for Harrold ISD.

“Good guys with guns — good,” he said. “Bad guys with guns — bad.”

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:22:10 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening -- and even if it does, they're not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid ...

...

No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn't mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won't lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn't think about that one, did ya?

...

All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.

Sinfonian
August 10, 2009
Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia
[My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.

My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.

The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, "Does he think women have infinitely sized guns?" Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:

  1. Buying a gun now, such as a so called "assault weapon" that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does "immunize" said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
  2. In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won't or can't happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
  3. The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
  4. Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us "barrel-strokers with small penises" have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.

 What would be funny if it weren't so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.--Joe]

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:03:14 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life )

Daughter Xenia has posted some videos from her wedding.

They brought tears to my eyes.

# Monday, August 10, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 10, 2009 10:58:09 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

If I were 30 years younger and in the market for a mate she sounds very nice:

She likes long walks on the beach, men who aren't afraid to cry, and puppies.

Her dislikes include feed tray stoppages, tracer flareout of her NVGs and premature fixed-wing strikes scattering her high-value targets.

(Via email from Carl, my first formal firearms instructor).

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 10, 2009 10:52:39 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics | Quote of the Day )

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
[I was reminded of this by what our Speaker of the House recently said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints. 

--Joe]

# Sunday, August 09, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 09, 2009 8:15:44 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Home Life )

I delivered over 1700 cardboard boxes and other supplies to the Boomershoot site today. I folded a couple hundred of the boxes and stored them away in crates. Then I visited my parents who live a couple miles away.

They asked how everyone was doing, did son Jamie (he used to be called Jamie rather than James and his grandparents still use that name) like his job okay? How long has he worked at Microsoft now? I told him everything was going fine, Xenia was a little depressed because her new husband is leaving for Iraq very soon. James, Kim, and Lisa (another grandchild) had housewarming party at James' new home near Seattle. Blah, blah, blah...

As it got late I told them I really had to leave so I could be home in time to eat dinner with Barb who would be getting off work soon. I had stood up, put my hat on and took a step or two toward the door when Dad told me to sit down because he had another story to tell. The following are his exact words as best I can remember them:

I got a call the other day. He said, "Hi Grandpa, this is Jamie. How are you doing?" I said I was doing okay and asked how he was doing.

He asked me if I could keep a secret. I told him I thought I probably could because I had keep a secret or two in my life. He said that he wasn't doing so well. He was in jail in Ottawa. I asked how that happened. He said that he and a friend had gone to a concert and when they came back over the border they were stopped, searched, and his friend had some marijuana in his backpack. They were both arrested and he needed $2800 to get out of jail.

He asked if I could help him out and I said I thought we probably could. He wanted the money sent via Western Union and he needed it right away. So your mom and I drove to Orofino went to the bank and got the money. But we started thinking that we should have asked a few more questions. "Why didn't he call you?", for example. But we went to the Western Union office at the IGA and told them what we wanted to do with the money and told them the story.

The woman there said to be really careful because there are a lot of people trying to commit fraud with Western Union. But we went ahead and sent the money but told them not to give it to anyone at the other end until we did some more checking. They gave us a toll-free number to call to okay the final delivery of the money.

We came back to the house and called the guy in Ottawa that was supposed to pick up the money for Jamie and I asked him, "How tall is Jamie?" He didn't answer. I asked him some other questions too but he didn't answer those questions either. He then got upset and asked, "Why are you asking me all these questions? Did you send the money or not?" I told him we didn't and he hung up the phone.

I called the Western Union number and they sent the money back. I called the Orofino office but they wouldn't do anything further until we came in and showed them picture ID. We didn't get back into town until yesterday and they wrote us three checks. The biggest check they can write is $1000 so they wrote us two checks for $1000 and another check for most of the remainder. It still cost us $139 but that wasn't too bad. It would have been a lot worse if it had been the whole $2800.

You, know if the police had been able to get together on that they could have caught them when they went to pick up the Western Union money. But he said he needed the money within two hours. I told him there wasn't any way I could get the money that fast. But he wanted it right away.

I asked if they had reported it to the police. He said no. And I said the FBI, if no one else, would be interested because it was Interstate wire fraud. Dad said he would let my brother Doug tell them. I asked if he had told Doug. He said no. Brother Gary was there and he piped up that this was the first time he had heard the story too. He had seen Mom and Dad leave for Orofino the other day but they told him they were going to the Builder's Supply. They did go there, but that wasn't the primary reason for the trip into town. They were trying to keep the secret for James.

I think Dad and Mom are a little embarrassed. They are 86 and 84 years old and not thinking quite as quick as they used to. We discussed lots of ways it could have been prevented from going as far as it did. I made sure they had the cell phone numbers for everyone in our family so they could call us directly to check things out. And I told them I didn't think James had ever been to a concert other than little things in the park and that he had never been to Canada let alone a part of Canada 2000+ miles away.

I'm writing this down so brother Doug can get the story as I heard it as well as getting the details from Dad again. Plus I'm sure my parents aren't the first people these criminals have tried to scam and if they aren't stopped and other people get some warning there will be others they are successfully with. This is to help warn others about the scam.

I expect there will be more to the story. There certainly still are a number of questions. Like how did they find out how my parents had a grandson by the name of Jamie? Facebook maybe? Probably something to do with the Internet. Perhaps even my blog (if you guys are reading this you should know I keep all my blog log files and will cooperate fully with law enforcement).

If anything further comes out that I can talk about I'll let you know.

Update: Mike sent me an email with this link to news that this scam is reasonably well known.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:43:46 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun | Home Life )

Yesterday afternoon I spent some time cleaning up the garage (not that anyone other than family could tell if they were to take a look at it even now). I sorted all the mixed caliber brass and put a batch of .40 S&W in the case cleaner. I figured I would take it out after supper. I forgot about it and instead of the usual two hours in the Dillion CV-750 it spent about 12 hours.

I now have some very shiny brass.

Update: Kris (in comments) wanted pictures.

See also the .300 Winchester Magnum brass I put in Sunday Morning:

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:38:22 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Home Life | Quote of the Day )

In the United States, the agricultural system is heavily industrialized, and relies on inputs such as diesel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and, perhaps most importantly, financing. In the current financial climate, the farmers’ access to financing is not at all assured. This agricultural system is efficient, but only if you regard fossil fuel energy as free. In fact, it is a way to transform fossil fuel energy into food with a bit of help from sunlight, to the tune of 10 calories of fossil fuel energy being embodied in each calorie that is consumed as food. The food distribution system makes heavy use of refrigerated diesel trucks, transporting food over hundreds of miles to resupply supermarkets. The food pipeline is long and thin, and it takes only a couple of days of interruptions for supermarket shelves to be stripped bare. Many people live in places that are not within walking distance of stores, not served by public transportation, and will be cut off from food sources once they are no longer able to drive.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[It's harvest time on the farm. I'm going to visit and drive combine for a while. It's been a couple years since I did that and it's time to satisfy that urge again.

The farm visit reminded me of the above quote. We do burn lots of fuel on the farm and of course the fuel consumption is far from over by the time the crop is delivered to the grain elevator in town.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 08, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 08, 2009 2:22:18 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Home Life )

I was giving considerable thought to posting something about niece Lisa sharing some genes with me when she made this post. Then today she described attending her first professional baseball game.

That's pretty much how I feel about them too--only I didn't think of writing an equation for the amount of fun people are having at a baseball game. But now that she has done it I think it's a great idea.

I only went to one game which was back in 1972. It was the San Diego Padres against the Saint Louis Cardinal or Boston Red Sox or some such thing. We left after the 13th inning when the score was still 0-0.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:16:47 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The last place you want to conceal is in the District, with all of these federal buildings. It makes the job of law enforcement damned difficult.

This is a frontal assault on the District's regulations under the Second Amendment. I don't think that's what Justice Scalia had in mind when he talked about self-defense.

Peter Nickles
August 8, 2009
D.C. Attorney General
Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District
[Does this guy think the only place you should be allowed to defend yourself is in your home? If you leave your home you leave the Second Amendment right to self-defense behind?

Sure, it makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest anyone with a gun in public. Just as it makes it easier for them if they arrest any black/white/yellow/red skinned person, Jew (wearing their yellow star), or homosexual (wearing their mandated pink triangle) in public after dark. But that wouldn't be justice nor should it be tolerated in a free society. But the actions and statements of D.C. politicians make that abundantly clear they aren't interested in a free society. And that means they need to be slapped down by the courts again.--Joe]

# Friday, August 07, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 07, 2009 9:00:21 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers.

Scott Bach
President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs
August 7, 2009
Corzine signs law limiting handgun purchases
[H/T to Jeff.

Straight thinking has never been a strong point of the anti-gun people. This case is just another in a long crooked line of abuses against gun owners.--Joe]

# Thursday, August 06, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:09:58 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Freedom | Politics )

Via Dave Hardy.

The government is not allowed to:

5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency

"(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;"

This wouldn't protect some blogger making viable threats against a politician (and rightly so). But it could be used to punish someone in the Federal Government (and rightly so) for keeping records of your peaceful opposition to proposed legislation (if that link goes dead here is a saved version of the page from Whitehouse.gov as of August 8, 2009 at 2315 PDT).

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:50:41 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Fun )

My old link to this was broken so I had to go looking for it and thought I would share.

It's a Classifer Calculator for USPSA stages. If you know your hit factor [(Points - Penalities)/Time] for shooting a stage then it will compute what percentage of the best shooters in the world your score represents. This percentage is used to calculate your classification. I'm considered a B-class shooter. The percentage ranges and classifications are:

Grand Master 95 to 100%
Master 85 to 94.9%
A  75 to 84.9%
B  60 to 74.9%
C  40 to 59.9%
D  2 to 40%

The USPSA will compute your percentage and post it on their website a week or two after your club sends in the results but if you want to know sooner you can use the Classifier Calculator to get the answer immediately.

Using Caleb's recent practice result I compute his hit factor at 7.8717 which yields 72.878% in the Limited Division. If he can do this consistently on a number of different stages in competition he is an upper B-class shooter.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:40:00 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

Reputo demonstrates that if someone claims the firearm homicide reductions in the late 90s were influenced by the anti-gun laws passed in '93 and '94 then those same laws can be claimed to have reduced the homicides by sharp objects and suffocation.

Nice job!

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:21:25 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Alan Gura with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation just filed suit against Washington D.C. again:

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”

“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”

SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Update: More stories are coming out:

It's good to know the money Microsoft (matching my gifts dollar for dollar) and I are donating to SAF are being put to work for a good cause--making Sad Pandas in the gun control community.

Graphic by Robb Allen.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:07:13 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Politics )

Apparently Paul Hemke is saying the defeat of the Thune Amendment helped prevent the Pittsburg shooting from being even worse:

Two weeks ago, gun violence prevention organizations helped defeat a bill in Congress that would have allowed this killer to carry his loaded weapon almost anywhere in the country.

Sooo... this killer was prevented from carrying his loaded weapon in other states because concealed carry license aren't universally recognized, but he wasn't prevented from murdering and wounding the women in Pittsburg by the laws against murder and assault?

Got it. I'm so glad Helmke told us that because I would have never been able to come to that conclusion on my own.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:54:54 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Politics )

Washington Ceasefire is endorsing Dow Constantine for King County Executive (Seattle area). This means you should vote for anyone but Constantine.

Constantine doesn't have Washington Ceasefire on the list of organizations endorsing him. This could be because the endorsement is new and/or he doesn't know about the endorsement. Or it could be that he doesn't want to advertise that fact. I can't find any mention of firearms on his website so it could be he realizes the KC Executive doesn't really have any authority to do anything regarding guns with the state Preemption and he will say whatever he thinks will get votes knowing he can't really be held responsible if he doesn't accomplish anything. Sort of like getting an endorsement from the KKK--the politician is probably happy to have the votes but doesn't really want get caught wearing a pillow case on his head.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:46:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Politics )

...in mixed company.  So here goes.  If you value your faith, please do not read any of this.  Say Uncle mentions some atheist ceremony (ehem).

Some say that atheism is a religion because, like any other religion it requires faith in something that cannot be proven-- the non-existence of god.  I don't know if I have that much faith.

Then there are those who have faith in something that has been proven wrong over and over-- socialism.

In my observation, most organized religions are control cults.  Many are death cults, socialism included.  It seems that humans have a built-in want or need for religion.

Homo Sapiens is an interesting species, to be sure.  Our innate creativity and our tendency to form paranoia cults would appear to go hand-in-hand.  Darwin wrote about such things in his famous book that no one ever read before condemning it, and that only a handful of people have ever read.  They don't have to read it, I guess, because they've already been told what's in it.  By people who never read it.  He called it something like "correlation", but I forget the actual term.  It refers to features that come in seemingly inseparable pairs.  Black skin and a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia in humans for example.  He points to many others in different species.  I make the correlation between creativity and paranoia through my own observations.

If God gave his only son to save us from our sins, and yet we're all the children of God and we all die from this Earth...  What?

If God gave his only son in the ultimate sacrifice, and they're now together in heaven forever, where's the sacrifice?  If the crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and yet we are to regard our life on Earth as a petty thing compared to eternity, how is the crucifixion any sacrifice at all?

Why didn't Jesus ask Mary, or one of his diciples, to nail him to the cross?  Hey; it's for the good of Mankind.  Why wait for a trial and all the hoopla?

If Jesus gave his life for us, then Pontius Pilot and the others did a service to all of Mankind, no?

Many other people suffered, and do suffer, as much or more than Jesus did, but they have the added disadvantage of not knowing for sure their place in the afterlife, or even whether there is an afterlife.  What about them?  Seems to me, practically speaking, that Jesus had it easier than a whole lot of other people.

If God created everything, including Satan, then God created hell, and he surely must still love his son-- Satan.  I wonder of Satan ever writes, or if this father/son relationship has any hope for reconciliation. (I dreamed I met Satan and his chief minion a couple months ago.  They looked a little silly and seemed a but surprised.  I told them; "I was just checking in to see how you were getting along.")

If God and Satan ever make up, who will be charged with torturing us for all of eternity for not embracing Jesus as our savior?

If everyone who accepts Jesus as their savior will go to heaven, no matter what, and even the best people who don't, won't, that seems rather unfair, doesn't it?

If the reason we believe that Jesus is the son of God (and again; aren't we all?) is that he performed magic tricks, and if faith is everything, why did Jesus have to perform magic tricks to prove himself?  I mean, couldn't his message have stood on its own merits?  And if the magic tricks are our proof, why not give us one that would last through the millennia, like, say, hand over the periodic table of the elements, or the universal law of gravity, or something equally awesome?  As it is, all we have is the second and third hand hearsay of a few individuals, who ostensibly got their proof and yet demand pure faith from us.  Seems rather unfair, no?

If Jesus had the Most Important Message Of All Time, the message that alone could lead us to eternal life, then why does he seem to have never put any of it into writing in his own hand?  Seems a cruel trick to send your one and only son (but aren't we all the sons and daughters of God?) to deliver The Most Important Message Ever and never teach the kid to write, or have him travel the world, or set up a radio station or something.

I think these are all perfectly reasonable, fair questions and observations.  Anyone trying to sell me religion (and there have been many) will have to answer them.  I've asked them before and gotten the response; "This proves the folly of casting pearls before swine"  which, I must say, just happens to be the same sort of response (though in more eloquent form) that I get when I ask socialists to demonstrate the validity of their assertions.  I add that in both cases I am being asked to deny that one that makes us human-- the thinking, reasoning ability of our brains.  Some people really, really hate that, believing that we should live much more like the other animals.  'Cause we deserve to suffer.  Because we suck.

I'm all for freedom of religion, certainly.  As I said; I believe it is inherent in the species, but since the Constitution proscribes the formation of a religious government, or much more accurately, a government religion, how is it that we have anything resembling socialism in our government?

Update: The science fiction (Arthur C. Clarke being a good example) dealing with alien races who either placed humans on Earth or gave us our intelligence, seems to be an alternate form of religion.  While it doesn't directly assert the existence of a God, it does the same thing.  It asserts a Higher Power far beyond our ability to understand, it denies, discredits or downplays the Long March of the development of our species, and shows disbelief (a lack of faith?) that something as complex as a human (or do we merely flatter ourselves?) could arise all on its own with nothing but the seemingly mundane forces of nature.  One thing the alien super race genesis theory does that religions typically don't do is; it leaves open the possibility that we may, millions of years down the road, at some point reach that intergalactic traveling, intelligence giving, god-like state ourselves.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:25:17 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom )

This is actually rather old news but I haven't seen it mentioned on any of the blogs I frequent. KnifeRights.org reports that Customs has backed off on expanding the definition of switchblades:

In a letter to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Customs has officially backed off their proposed revocations in recognition of the Amendment that was passed by the Senate (see below), at least until the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is acted upon in Conference Committee.

You can read the letter here, but the key paragraph reads "The amendment would effectively obviate the need for CBP's proposed revocations and render the current issue moot. Additionally, due to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed revocation, it is unlikely that CBP will take any further action prior to passage of the Appropriations Act.

This is about as close to a victory as we can come at this time. It may not be over until the fat lady sings, and we actually get the Amendment through Conference Committee, but for all practical purposes, we shouldn't have to worry about Customs reaching into your pockets for your pocket knives anytime soon. Do take note that Customs has included some ambiguous wording in their letter, leaving their options open, no surprise. But, make no mistake, they have gotten the message; don't mess with our pocket knives!

Of course Liberty is always unfinished business so don't expect this will be the end of it but it's good enough for now.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:10:51 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

...a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles...is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.

Ben Franklin
[It seems to me that the frequency of recurrence has been more than a little bit low. Even if we went to our fundamental principles right now it would be approximately 140 pico-Hertz and I'm thinking it should be more on the order of 12 micro-Hertz.--Joe]

# Wednesday, August 05, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:02:18 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Freedom | Gun Fun | Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.

George Bernard Shaw
See also here, for further background on this phrase. The original was not "The road to hell is paved..." but Hell itself that was paved.
[I'm thinking gun control, TSA, socialized medicine, "affordable housing", "hate speech" laws, rent control, the list is, for all practical purposes endless. See also New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.

I just bought Bat Out Of Hell so I could play it while posting this and doing my dry-fire practice.--Joe]

# Tuesday, August 04, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:41:57 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Via email from Bill Waites:

I usually avoid the Health Care discussions, mostly because it takes so long to explain the answers because it takes so long to explain the causes. I realize that I don't have the entire answer, and that some of the causes are more complex than I delineate, but I can give a good basis for the problems. This is long, so stop now if you get bored easily!

First, a little background. I began my professional life as a Special Agent for Nationwide Insurance. Most of us in the West see Nationwide advertisements and say, "who are they?" Nationwide is one of largest property casualty insurers in the world, at one point I think they were the largest fire insurance company provider in the world. When I worked for them, there were only about 12 other employees with my position, while Nationwide had 18-20,000 employees, a large percentage of them in Columbus, Ohio. We sold to a very targeted audience, farmers and very small business, where the owner and his family were the only employees. We had a joint marketing agreement with Cenex, and with most of the wheat, potato, and apple Co-Ops in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

I basically sold health insurance for them, as a company employee. When I left, I started my own agency, continuing to sell health insurance, but also selling “special risk” insurance, (an industry category for things like adult football games, sports camps, and activities like Boomershoot, that didn’t fit into the “normal” categories). I continued to sell Nationwide, but also Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, and others.

When I left the business, I went into health care, first running the insurance computer system for a small hospital, then returned to school. After graduating, I initially worked as an RN, working med-surg units, ER's, public health clinics, and nursing homes. Finally, I returned to school once again, became a Physician Assistant, and after 12 years in a busy Internal Medicine office, I now run a small rural clinic, where I am the only provider 4 1/2 days a week. We accept all insurance plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

The short version of the health insurance crisis starts here. The first modern plans began in the 1920's, with Blue Cross covering hospital visits and Blue Shield covering Physician costs. Eventually, most large employers offered insurance, but Bell Telephone is often used as a prototype of how those plans developed. Their initial plan had a $200 deductible, when the average lineman made about $200/month. Over the years, that $200 deductible became locked in stone, and it really is only in the last couple years that deductibles have changed much at all. I think someone told me the current wages for an AT&T lineman are in the $4-5000/month range to start.

Anyone see any problems with that?

As the years passed, more and more people had coverage, and fewer and fewer were willing to take any responsibility for their own care, but they still used those health insurance benefits. Unfortunately, now that the costs were such a small percentage of their income, they used them more and more.

When I was growing up, I, just like all my friends, went to the doctor when something was broken, or when I needed vaccinations. I honestly don't remember a visit because I was sick. My sister had a few visits because of fainting spells, and my brother had chronic ear infections and ended up having multiple ear surgeries, but for colds, coughs, nausea, and vomiting, my parents, and the parents of all my friends, believed in the "3 day rule". In other words, wait 3 days, and if you aren't getting better, then we'll talk about going to the doctor. I never could manage to stay sick that long!

About half the patients I see now have been sick for less than 24 hours, and most of those have nothing that 3 days won't fix.

Of the remaining 50%, most have self induced illnesses, like lung disease from smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

AT LEAST 50% of all primary care doctors visits are just like my office, where education, and patient compliance, would solve most problems.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive for education, and there is no way to fund it under the current policies.

In the early 1980’s, in an effort to curb the ever increasing costs of Medicare, the Federal government created  DRG’s, (Diagnostic Related Groups). These new laws forced medical providers, (initially only hospitals were affected), to accept flat fees for services that were all part of any particular group. If you refused to do so, you couldn’t be a Medicare provider, and few, if any, hospitals could see themselves surviving without those Medicare patients. Since that time, at least 7 different DRG programs have evolved to cover all the different problems faced by anyone having to bill for medical services.

Anyone see any problems with that?

Insurance companies didn’t waste much time adopting the DRG model, and soon hospitals and doctors were faced with new contracts demanding discounts on virtually every procedure.

Doctors and hospitals soon realized that they had problems, but no way to resolve it. If you refused the discounts, they simply decertified you as a provider. Watching 50% of your patients walk away because you are not accepted as a provider by their insurance company has a sobering effect upon even the most independent of doctors.

During this entire time, though, medical technology was growing at a pace unheard of previously. As computer power became cheaper, all kinds of digital image devices became more and more common, but they were all incredibly expensive. First ultrasound, then CT, then MRI, then MRA, then PET scans became the rage. It wasn’t just patients or doctors that demanded them, it was the insurance companies, trying to avoid the expensive hospital stay. Where before a surgeon might do an exploratory surgery to take out an appendix that was acting up, now a CT showed if it was actually inflamed before surgery was considered. Where virtually any orthopedic surgeon could correctly diagnose a torn ACL, now an MRI was required before surgery to make sure that was the cause.

More and more expensive tests were available, and if they are available, why not use them? Doctors rapidly grew tired of being sued, and if one of those new tests might lower that risk, you can be sure they would order it!

So we had 3 huge contributing factors contributing to the rising cost:

1) Poor education and compliance, leading people to seek medical care when it wasn’t necessary.
2) Increasingly stringent billing requirements which required larger and larger staffs to ensure compliance.
3) Increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) testing.

Factor 1 is exacerbated by those who have no idea what health care costs actually are. As an example, along with my regular job, I occasionally work in an Urgent Care owned and operated by a community hospital.  I recently saw a carpenter injured on the job. He had a fairly complex laceration that needed to be repaired, as well as a severe contusion and muscle strain. He liked his job and his employer (a small businessman), and he initially refused to complete an accident form to be filed with Labor and Industries. When I and the nurse both tried to get him to understand that if his injury caused him to lose work time his only income would come from the L&I claim, he still refused. His injury was significant, but wouldn’t probably cause long term disability. However, he said, “I’ll just pay it myself, the basic visit is only about $30 or so, right?” Both the nurse and I burst out laughing. This was a hard working guy, who probably hasn’t seen a doctor in 20 years. He had no idea that the cost of the visit would probably be closer to $400 than $40.

Another group who has no idea about costs are those insured by the government on Medicaid. They never see a bill, so why should they? I honestly believe that most of them are good people caught in tough situations, like young married students, or single moms whose spouses have disappeared, but I recognize that some of them are permanent scammers. They are the ones with Medicaid and the Cadillac Escalade in the parking lot! 

I have deliberately left out Malpractice Insurance as a contributing factor, but it does play a part also. I have also left out the impact of an aging population, because we can’t change that, (unless we decide it is patriotic to actually encourage early end of life options, a morally repugnant idea to me!)

All of these problems were exacerbated by increasingly large groups of people receiving health care from State and Federal funded programming. Why does that make it worse? Because those agencies only pay 20-60% of the actual charges. If they didn’t cover it, who did?

Well, that happened courtesy of a little ploy called “cost shifting”.

Cost shifting occurs when one or more of your insured groups doesn’t pay the entire amount due. At that point, you raise the cost of that particular issue to everyone else paying for it. So if my appendix removal cost $1000, and my State coverage paid $200, the hospital would raise the cost of my neighbors appendectomy to $1800 to cover the difference. But since my neighbors insurance only paid $1500, (because of his insurance companies demanded discount, remember?) then that $300 was tacked onto the $1800 the next guy paid. Since he didn’t have the discounted insurance plan, his entire bill of $2100 was due. He either paid it, or hoped that his insurance company would. So that initial $1000 procedure costs someone else $2100 for the same procedure!

Now, some of you are statisticians and actuaries, and I’ll readily admit that this was a gross simplification, but it is what happened and continues to happen.

Those same 3 factors continue to cause today’s problems.

The system is undoubtedly broken, and it is broken because we don’t have the guts to fix it.

So I’ve made all these simplifications and pointed out the problems, what are the solutions?

Well, there isn’t one, but there may be several things that will help to allow necessary changes that will allow access to more people, and especially to allow critical access. The fact is that each of the problems is on its face simple, but the solutions are incredibly complex, because we as country refuse to acknowledge that there will always be some rationing of care. Too many of us seem to think that if there were enough money we could fix the problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough money in the world to provide the very best care to everyone in the United States. Currently the care is rationed by the simple expedient of cost. If you are wealthy enough, or if you have employer provided health insurance, you have access to the most advanced medical system in the world. (Ignore ANYONE who says otherwise. Americas system is the best, bar none. Why does anyone who examines the system think otherwise? If it wasn’t the best in the world, all those wealthy Saudis, Indonesians, Kuwaitis, etc. would be going elsewhere. They aren’t!)

At this juncture someone will point out that if we have the best care, we should have the best infant mortality rates, and we should live longer than anyone else. The problem is that ACCESS does not equal results. Americans are, by nature, individualists. We don’t always want to be told what to do. Thus, our vaccination rates aren’t as high as some Third World countries because some of us CHOOSE to not vaccinate our kids. We COULD, but we don’t! The same is true for all kinds of other issues regarding health care. We COULD improve, be we are too busy, or something else has a higher priority, or there is some other problem that we deem more important, and we don’t get the care that is available.

Now back to access for a minute. You also have access to the system if you qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Yep, that’s right, the poorest of the poor, and virtually every child has access to the system because of Medicaid. The only children that fall through the cracks are the ones with lazy, drunk, or drug addicted parents. They fall through not because coverage isn’t available, but because the adults they should be able to depend on are irresponsible. The most vulnerable of our society, it’s children and its very old, are invariably covered by some type of plan.

Let’s look at the 3 problems and see what we CAN do for them.

1) Education is critical. However, education is not covered to any extent by any plan. Getting education for diabetes, congestive heart failure, Emphysema, or any other medical condition is almost impossible on any plan. There is a reason for that. It is impossible to actually get statistical data that verifies that it improves outcomes! The system isn’t currently designed to follow up with people who receive education and see if their outcomes are better than those of people who don’t receive the counseling and education. (Dirty secret number one: Contrary to what they say, no insurance company really cares what the outcomes are! The reason is simple. You aren’t going to statistically affect their bottom line! You are going to have your greatest expenses in the last couple years of your life, and that won’t happen on their plan. It will happen on Medicare’s dime! This is how insurance companies work, they analyze the risk, determine the actuarial costs, and then charge the premiums required to cover the costs. They are VERY good at it! They got burned in the 80’s and early 90’s because the rapid advance and cost of technology screwed the tables, but they have it figured out now.) Here is an example of how good they are: I prescribed a once daily medicine for a patient. It was less expensive than most similar medicines, and in a rare twist, it was actually cheaper than the twice daily version of the same medicine. From my view that is a win/win/win. It has been proven that patients are more compliant with once daily medicines, so I win. The patient wins because he feels better and has only one pill and the insurance company wins because it is cheaper, right? Wrong! The insurance company approved only the twice daily version. I finally got an honest answer from a pharmacist I had known for years at the company. The company had examined their refill data. On the once daily medicine, refills happened every 33 days on average. On the twice daily medicine, refills happened every 46 days. The insurance company benefitted because people forgot to take their medicine! So, any plan that actually will improve long term outcomes must provide for education AND a way to track outcomes after that education.

2) In the last 30 years the number of claims people, analysts, customer service reps, management for those people, and management for the managers at insurance companies have skyrocketed. All those people have to justify their jobs. How do they do it? Just like all good bureaucrats! They request more and more paperwork. Most offices have a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of employees to Doctor or provider. One of those is the nurse, all the rest are paper pushers. If there are two or more providers in an office, you can bet that there will be at least one nurse whose job is making sure that all the requested tests, Xrays, referrals and other paperwork is completed so that all the insurance companies are happy. On average, every insurance company has twice the number of staff that the office has. All those people provide absolutely NOTHING to the care of the patient, but they all have to be paid! If we are to have any hope of improving the system, we have to cut out all the middlemen and women who just handle paper.

3) This one is tough! All those tests do have their place, but they must be used wisely. Unfortunately, they aren’t. They are used as “shark repellant”. Medical providers no longer order them because they will actually help us, (though sometimes they do), they are ordered because it keeps the lawyers at bay. “See, I ordered all the appropriate tests and they were all negative. I had nothing to go on that might have indicated that Mr. Smith had appendicitis.” Unfortunately, what Mr. Smith had was a gall bladder attack, and none of the tests actually showed that! Of course a good exam might have triggered that as the cause for his complaint, but since insurance companies demand tests, sometimes the exam is underappreciated. Doctors, PA’s, and NP’s, are trained to do good exams and to ask questions, but that information doesn’t always fit into what insurance companies want. Providers are paid for their judgment, why not actually listen to it? We don’t treat tests, we treat patients!! In all my time in practice, I have yet to run across an appendicitis that I didn’t diagnose BEFORE the CT was done, but we added that $1000 cost just to be sure, for the insurance company. In all my time in practice, I’ve never found an ACL tear on MRI that I wasn’t sure was an ACL tear before the MRI, but we added $1500 to the bill to prove it. IF a PA like myself can do it, it is a certainty that surgeons and orthopedics specialists will be even better!

So my solutions:

1) Make education a requirement for patients, and then pay for it. No education, no medicine, no treatment. Make patients responsible for their care.
2) Make paperwork less burdensome. The vast majority of paper pushing employees can be done away with.
3) Make all these high tech tests less important and rely on judgment more. That’s why we spent all those years in school. Those tests help a lot when we are unsure, but doing them for everyone isn’t the best way to solve the problem, trained judgment is!

The final answer is this: Patients MUST be made accountable for their own care. Financial responsibility is the first leg of that table. Quit allowing people to get care with no out of pocket cost. EVERY adult should have to pay something for every visit. Children are more vulnerable, so that rule can’t apply to them. NO adult should be insulated from the costs of healthcare. Not knowing the costs leads to abuse. People that abuse the system should be punished in some way. The biggest fraud being perpetrated is by people with government benefits who use the system inappropriately. As I stated earlier, most of them need the care. However, far too many simply abuse the access given to them by the government.

Ok, this got much longer than intended, I told you it was tough to summarize!!

It appears we are in a bad situation because we have a very strong tendency to apply small tweaks to the system rather than do a complete rewrite.

I keep thinking, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and we are on the fraking Freeway of the Reich to hell with the pedal to the metal, no speed limit, and the exits require you slow down to 10 MPH in order to even see them.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:29:01 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

Your source for information on states giving "a symbolic middle finger to Washington" is the Firearms Freedom Act website.

Via David.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:46:51 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Bloggers | Quote of the Day )

This makes sense. I mean, email is kind of like the blogosphere in much the same way that the U.S. Mail is like The American Spectator. After all, they're both full of words printed on paper, right?

Tamara K.
August 4, 2009
Just not getting it.
[Someone should print out a copy of the Internet for this "Jim" guy and let him read the whole thing. Then maybe he would understand the difference--or at least he wouldn't annoy anyone (see also here) for a while.--Joe]

# Monday, August 03, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 9:23:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom )

Orwell was right:

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes.

...

It gets worse. The government is also maintaining a private army, incredibly not called “Thought Police”, which will “be sent round to carry out home checks,” according to the Sunday Express. And in a scheme which firmly cements the nation’s reputation as a “nanny state”, the kids and their families will be forced to sign “behavior contracts” which will “set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.”

And remember, this is the left-wing government. The Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, batting for the conservatives, thinks these plans are “too little, and too late,” implying that even more obtrusive work needs to be done. Rumors that a new detention center, named Room 101, is being constructed inside the Ministry of Love are unconfirmed.

He was off by a few years, but hey, he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949. I have trouble predicting technology or politics even five years in advance.

Update: Phil has more and this link to another article. For some reason I find it amusing and appropriate the government bureaucrat doing this is "Children's Secretary Ed Balls".

However, in the comments there appears to be some question about the truthfulness of the report:

IS THE DAILY EXPRESS MAKING THIS UP?

04.08.09, 4:04pm

This announcement has been reported elsewhere (eg see Daily Mail, The Times) but no-one else has mentioned anything about CCTV being involved. Especially not in people's own homes.

For instance, check the offical government announcement here:
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8846

Apparently, in very extreme cases familes may be moved from estates to 'core residential units' for 24 hour support and supervision, but this is very different from the alarmist report of the government planning to put "20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision"

So, to cut a long story short, the Daily Express seems to have misunderstood this initiative somewhat. Which is a shame because this report has been picked up and discussed all over the internet over the last few days.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 9:05:45 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( PNNL )

Phil Pulver has been involved in a lawsuit against Battelle since 1995. Phil contacted me when I was doing battle against Battelle/PNNL and we talk on the phone every once in a while. Here are some of the more interesting points:

Via a DOE grant for $42,128 some software was developed and Pulver given exclusive rights to it. Battelle then delivered a non-working version to Pulver (Battelle disputes this point). Battelle then continued to work on it and used the software for a project for Homeland Security. They then applied for a patent on software that looks nearly identical and claim it was something completely unrelated to Pulvers.

Pulver has spent ~$300K on legal fees. The DOE pays Battelle's legal fees but Battelle gets to call the shots in the legal case. So far Battelle has spent nearly $750K in taxpayer money.

Your government in action.

See Pulvers website for more details than you probably want to know.

The other guy? John Trumbo is the reporter at the paper who wrote the article. I had lunch with him once and he wrote an couple articles on my battle with Battelle as well. I referred Pulver to Trumbo.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, August 03, 2009 3:09:23 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Economics | Technology | Work )

Why is it that every printer ever made has User Frustrator Tabs (UFTs) built into the paper tray?  Their only function is to prevent the user from sliding a new stack of paper into the paper tray.  They're there to catch the corners of the paper as you're trying to get it into the machine, thus causing one or more sheets to bunch or shift inside the tray.  Often it's the bottom sheet that gets hung up, and of course it's impossible to slide the bottom sheet forward under the stack, even without UTFs, unless you remove the whole stack and try again.  UFTs work especially well when you have an important customer on the phone and you're in a hurry to print something.  Of course the printer never knows that you've just installed a new, crumpled stack of paper in it, so while you're on the phone you have to find the right button to push, telling the printer it is now time to jam and wad a new sheet in its mechanism.

I can just see Butters, in his aluminum foil Professor Chaos uniform, evil grin on his face, as he builds the CAD file for the new HP paper tray; "He he he heeee.  Now the world will know the pain and frustration...."

Hey guys; ever though of having, you know, flat, smooth surfaces inside the paper tray?

#876,394.2;

Why is it that the printer and camera manufacturers actually hire (and presumably pay) extra people to write software, and then actually include it in their product packaging, just to take over my computer, turning it into an All-HP Fun House, or the Wonderful, Lollipop World of Cannon, instead of the computer I actually liked and paid for?  It's like putting dog turds in your product packaging.  You hire people to search for dog turds, you hire people to wrap those dog turds, and then you pay to ship those dog turds with each camera or each printer, so that I'll stick one in my optical drive and ruin everything, permeating my whole computer.  Gee, thanks.  All I wanted to do was print stuff, OK?  How hard is that to understand?  All I want to do is take pictures and put them on my computer.  Why does that require special dog turd software?  You know what I do?  I pull the card from the camera and use a damned card reader, 'cause that way I know I'm not sticking yet another dog turd in my optical drive.

(go ahead-- ask me how I feel about it)

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 8:38:20 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics )

Via an email from the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

For more info go to TriggerTheVote.org.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 8:12:40 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights )

My lawyer friends tell me it's going to be good for a laugh to see the Feds twist and turn a little bit but not much more. I hope they are wrong but I do enjoy laughing. Have your popcorn and soft drinks ready by October:

The man who helped write the bill that exempts federal regulation of Montana made firearms says that the idea is gaining support around the country.

The state legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Ac during its last session and now the Montana Shooting Sports Association plans to file a lawsuit on October 1st.

The suit will challenge the authority of Congress to regulate Montana manufactured guns, accessories and ammunition that stays in the state according to Montana Shooting Sports Association President Gary Marbut.

Last month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent out a letter stating that the federal law still applies in Montana.

Marbut says that ATF acknowledgment will help the Montana Shooting Sports Association gain standing in its lawsuit.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 8:04:31 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Sex )

From The Scotsman:

HAVING sex without a condom is good for your mental health, according to controversial research conducted by a leading Scottish psychologist. Professor Stuart Brody concludes that unprotected heterosexual sex can significantly boost men and women's mental wellbeing.

Conversely, Mr Brody claims that heterosexual sex with a condom is associated with poorer mental health, problems with dealing with stress and even conditions such as depression.

...

Mr Brody said: "Evolution is not politically correct, so of the very broad range of potential sexual behaviour, there is actually only one that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one sexual behaviour that would be favoured by evolution. That is not accidental."

I hope he took the basic precaution of trying to compensate for things such as marital status, economic situation, education, drug (including alcohol) use, etc. If he did then his finding are very interesting. If he did not then his "study" is complete crap.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 03, 2009 7:35:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.

Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side--Gail Collins gets it right
["No sense"? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can't remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.

I'd love to see the research showing violence (not just "gun violence") is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn't mention it. I don't think it exists.

And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, "In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem."

As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?

Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.--Joe]

# Sunday, August 02, 2009
By: Barbara Sunday, August 02, 2009 7:21:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

There are multiple reasons that I fear the thought of government controlled health care.

  1. Your choices will be taken away from you. The government programs does not take into consideration individual needs, they make decisions only as a general rules that apply to each person despite what is best for the specific person--except for themselves. I am sure they will always be able to get around the rules they make for other people. They are already making decisions for you, not the health care person who knows what the situation is.
  2. I have worked with nurses and doctors from Canada. Each nurse at our hospital takes care of 4-5 people at a time plus they have aides. Nurses are your first line of defense in the hospital, they are the ones that are there to make important decisions for you--call the MD, send you to the critical care unit, etc. The Canadian nurses said that they may have more than 10 patients and not enough aides. One nurse said that she is sure that people died because they didn't have time to assess the situation for the patients in critical need. Plus the ER was flooded with patients with sore throats and ear aches so that the ER Staff didn't have time to assess who had the critical needs. After all, health care is free so why not just go to ER and not wait until the next day?
  3. It appears to me that people who have free health care take advantage of it. The big example is welfare/Medicaid patients. They have poor health habits, little carry through on instructions. In home health we disliked getting Medicaid patients, not because they were poor, but because of their "give me attitude". Give me the best of care because "I" am just as good as you and I want everything but I don't want to take care of myself. These patients are often "frequent fliers" who come in to get their COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), diabetes or drug and alcohol dependencies under control. We clean them up, "save" them, send them home, and they are back in a few months. These people burn up so much money for health care but, hey, its "free" so no problem for them. In contrast, people on Medicare, they earned it by working all their lives--no it's not a great system either but people did earn it--just want to get better and get out of the hospital or out of home health because they have a life they want to go back to. They generally follow instructions better and don't return to the hospital over and over again. In general they are a pleasure to care for because they appreciate their health care.
  4. The government screws up so many things. They hire more and more layers of administration and they still can't get it right. Plus there will always be people who learn how take advantage of the system so they will have to hire more and more non-medical people to police the system but they usually only hurt the people who are trying to follow the rules. You can't imagine how much paperwork we have to fill out to see Medicare and Medicaid patients plus the charting that is required on all patients.
  5. Good MDs and health care workers are the frogs that are starting to boil. You don't know the early and late hours these rural MDs are working or the piles of paperwork sitting on their desks. They are not making big money but they work the "big" hours. Government will not run this system efficiently. There will not be incentives for the really bright people to go into medicine--nope they are not that stupid. Seriously I think that will we will have an even greater shortage of MDs and other medical staff. But don't worry they are accepting people--minorities--into medical programs who actually need remedial help passing tests. Now that makes me feel better about our health care.

When the government takes over we can look forward to poor health care for everyone.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:41:24 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Freedom | Politics )

Part I was here. You really should read all the comments if this topic interests you even a little bit.

I got a response back from Benjamin who gave me permission to use his name:

I think I'm picking up what you're putting down, and it all makes sense. I do have some counter questions though.

First question.
If the cost of healthcare is too high to provide adequate healthcare to all through a government run system, is there a way to encourage healthcare to cost less?

When I got what was left of my appendix out, it cost me roughly $12,000 (This was 1999 and so I just don't remember exactly) but included an overnight stay, and extensive surgery to get the poison out of my belly. Five years later I broke my arm and had outpatient surgery to have two screws put in my elbow so I would regain full range of movement, which I never got back. That surgery cost me $6,000, and both times the anesthesiologist cost around 60% of the total cost.

While I understand that medical costs are high because the penalty for failure is high. If I lose and arm because it gets infected, the surgeon doesn't get all the poison out of my belly and I die, or the anesthesia isn't administered properly I might die. But it seems like the amount that it costs to get basic or complex medical procedures done is disproportionate to their difficulty or cost in materials. My $12k and $3k bills, as well as lesser bills over the years have made me believe there is a lot of waste involved purely by the number of people I have to pay. Burning through 14 checks to pay for a single outpatient surgery is not reasonable.

Second question.
You state that immortality or close to it will be achievable soon.
First by the rich and then later by the middle class. But what mechanism (Similar to supply and demand or some-such) is in place to drive the prices down and make it achievable?

It seems to me that in the small window of time I have been an alert adult, medical costs have only seemed to go up and not down. I've been paying for my own medical care for 11 years. The cost of stitches, X-rays, and CT scans has gone up, and not down. While I know that the medical field stretches far beyond emergency and trauma related care, my view point is not showing a drop in cost.

Discrimination
I want to try and say that race, socioeconomic status, what gender you choose to love, how much of an asshole you are, or church you attend (or don't), won't have any impact on the quality or duration of healthcare you receive. But it really hurts me to say that I know that I would be full of shit and wrong with every single syllable I strung together, no matter how beautifully I managed to do so. America rocks. I fucking love this place. But americans are ignorant, self centered, asshole cowards, on the whole. Fearful of what they don't or choose not to understand.

Benjamin

P.S. Thanks for being informed and opinionated. I really like knowing that there are people out there who have an opinion for a reason, know how to share it, and do. I spend some time nearly every day listening to the two local conservative and an one liberal AM radio talk stations. Glenn Beck, Rush Vicodin, Randi Rhodes, Lars Larson, and whoever else sort of scare me.

My response:

Barb says she will write up something for me to post on my blog soon as well. She has a lot of experience with government run health care.

First Answer:
Basically, I don't have any knock-out good answers.

Getting the government out of the health care business will help some. The price of drugs is probably 20 to 100 X what it would be without the FDA being involved. Just like anti-gun people only citing the costs of guns in society and not mentioning the benefits the FDA costs are seldom mentioned. Not only in the incredible expense to get a new drug to market but the number of lives lost because of the delays.

Requiring hospitals to give free health care to those that can't pay raises the prices for everyone. All the paperwork required raises the price a bunch as well. This isn't just the governments though. Insurance fraud has contributed a great deal as well. Insurance also raises the cost not just because of the extra documentation required but because they put a lot of pressure on providers to reduce the price and providers give them discounts of something like 40% over what an individual would pay.

A looser pays court system would help but I'm not entirely comfortable with that concept either.

Another thing that makes the comparison from 10 or 20 years ago to now difficult is that the quality isn't the same. MRI's weren't available. Many of the drugs available now did not exist then. Lots of people that would have died or been permanently disabled a decade or two ago now go home and have many more healthful years left.

Second answer:

There will be lots of research, engineering, and failures going into the first efforts. Think of Microsoft Office--the first copy costs many millions, the second copy costs pennies. It won't be that dramatic but drugs really aren't that much different. The costs are weighted very, very heavily on the front end.

I hope Barb will be able contribute more.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:12:17 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It's the county's position that the panel did not need to reach the issue of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. It's the county's hope that that's what attracted the court's attention.

T. Peter Pierce
Of Richards, Watson & Gershon
July 30, 2009
9th Circuit Giving Gun Case Another Look
[In other words, "We hope the Second Amendment only applies to people residing in Washington D.C." If he had said a similar sort of thing about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth or 13th Amendments he would have been, and justifiably so, told he needed to find new employement as a janitor, santitation engineer, or Chinese target stand. But he didn't. He was talking about the Second Amendment which is somehow "different". I wonder why...

There are people on our side of the issue that are quite anxious about what this might mean as well. David HardySebastian, and Eugene Volokh have a few words to say about it. Oral arguments will occur the week of September 21st and we might get a clue as to the outcome.--Joe]

# Saturday, August 01, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:34:49 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot )

I just ordered 1750 cardboard boxes for Boomershoot targets. Combined with what we already have that is over 2400 boxes. That includes a few extras but still... I'm planning on a LOT of targets for next year.

Including miscellaneous other supplies that one order was nearly $760. That doesn't include the ton (literally) of chemicals, wooden stakes, and numerous other things. But do you know what?

It will be so awesome it will be worth it!

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:18:35 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Technology )

I occasionally post about the adverse results of socialized medicine but probably haven't said much about what I think about it. A friend asked the following via email:

I have been meaning to ask you for a more detailed explaination of your stance on universal government run health care as it is being proposed right now. I understand you oppose it, but as someone who is poor and hasn't had healthcare for 11 years and has used the emergency room for most of my healthcare needs, why it is bad.

I know there is no free lunch.
I know that someone is paying for it.
I want to know why YOU are opposed to it and why.

My response (except for a few personal things that were deleted to protect privacy):

Health care... Big, big topic.

I understand the no insurance situation. [details deleted]

I have tried to express this in a "Just One Question" format but haven't quite been able to do it. Here's my best attempt:

If it were possible to keep someone alive and robust essentially forever (baring catastrophic injury) but it cost $1M/year per person should the "government" supply it for everyone?

Of course the answer is "we can't afford that".

The thing is we are rapidly approaching the point where immortality may be achievable for some people. I suspect age-wise I am just above the cutoff line where it will be technically feasible. My kids (and probably you) have a good chance at that.

All government health care plans equalize (for the most part--people in power typically are more equal than others even if the law says otherwise) the care. There simply isn't budget for everyone to get "the best". Care will be rationed or it will be substandard. Look into what happened in the UK. The waiting lists cause people to die. Too old, too fat, or smoke? You don't get the knee replacement or other care because that money would be "better spent" on someone younger or healthier.

Government bureaucrats will make the rules and/or review cases deciding who gets care and who dies. It WILL be abused. It might be on racial or religious lines or it might be on the basis of who you know. Whatever the case it won't be on the basis of what you and/or friends and family think you are worth or can afford. When someone pulls the plug on me I want it to be because I and/or my family decided it was time or couldn't afford the cost rather than some government official that decided they didn't like my skin color or I had been just a little too uppity with some of my blog postings.

If Bill Gates and other extremely wealthy people are allowed to pay for whatever the free market can come up with immortality will probably be achieved soon. It will be extremely expensive and only a few will be able to afford it. But the price will come down and someday it will be affordable by the middle class. If equality of care is enforced we may never have that available to us.

See also what Alan Korwin has to say about it:

http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2009/07/dangerous-health-care-insanity-spreads.html

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:14:53 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Gun Rights )

After the flap about PayPal being anti-gun I decided to put renewed effort into dumping them for doing Boomershoot and Modern Ballistics credit card transactions then tell them why. The problem was finding a good alternative.

I can't find the email or comment that recommended them but someone suggested I try a particular bank. It didn't work out. Here is what their policy says:

NO ADULT SITES OR MATERIAL

The Merchant agrees that CartSquare's services will only be used for lawful purposes. Furthermore, Merchant agrees not use CartSquare products, online shopping carts, or services provided through or in connection with CartSquare to

...

d. sell, distribute, disseminate or link to any sites for marketing, sales or distribution of: adult materials, firearms, explosives, ammunition, liquor, tobacco products, food that is not packaged or does not comply with all applicable laws for sale to consumers by commercial merchants, pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party's rights, registered or unregistered securities, goods or services that (i) you cannot legally sell, (ii) are misrepresented, and/or (iii) if sold via CartSquare or Your Web Site would cause CartSquare to violate any law, statute or regulation;

That's right. I wouldn't be able to even link to a site that marketed or sold firearms, explosives, or ammunition. In their minds that is in the same as category as "controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party rights".

What about the people that want to exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms?

I wrote them an email asking abou their policy:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:25 AM
To: 'support@nmbancard.com'
Subject: Question about agreement terms.

In the terms of agreement (https://www.cartsquare.net/administration/uplinks.php3 ) I found the following:

Furthermore, Merchant agrees not use CartSquare products, online shopping carts, or services provided through or in connection with CartSquare to

d. sell, distribute, disseminate or link to any sites for marketing, sales or distribution of: adult materials, firearms, explosives, ammunition, liquor, tobacco products, food that is not packaged or does not comply with all applicable laws for sale to consumers by commercial merchants, pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party's rights, registered or unregistered securities, goods or services that (i) you cannot legally sell, (ii) are misrepresented, and/or (iii) if sold via CartSquare or Your Web Site would cause CartSquare to violate any law, statute or regulation;

My business is a long range precision rifle event with explosives as the targets (http://www.boomershoot.org/). I have an ATF license to manufacture high explosives. I could, but do not, legally sell explosives. I sell people the opportunity to shoot at the explosives I make. I do link to firearms, ammunition, and explosives vendors who legally sell their products. Do you consider this a violation of your agreement?

If so then I will have to find a different bankcard vendor who is more tolerant of people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Please let me know.


Joe Huffman
208-301-4254
-----
http://blog.joehuffman.org/
http://www.boomershoot.org/
http://www.modernballistics.com/

Their reply:

From: Merchant Support
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:28 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: Your Merchant Account Application


Hello Joe Huffman,

According to Visa/MasterCard, your business is considered a High Risk Business  After reviewing your application we can not continue processing your application through Cardservice International.   However, we have found you another company that can approve your application.  Please click on this link below or copy and paste the link into your browser exactly how you see it to qualify for our special offer.
http://www.durangomerchantservices.com/Applications/apply_for_free.php?agentid=rwolf@ecommercemg.com
The rates are slightly different, however this could be the solution that you are looking for.

Thank you,

Merchant Account Support
support@merchantlane.com
Phone: 1-866-295-5264

Merchant accounts have fees that typically are on the order of $50/month whether you have any business or not. Boomershoot has essentially zero sales 11 months out of the year and Modern Ballistics is shareware and only gets a donation about once every couple of months. Plus the contract terms typically demand third party audits and intrusions rivaling that of a colonoscopy (been there, done that, don't want to do it again).

Chet, a friend from work, suggested I look at Amazon's Simple Pay.

It looks as if my businesses just skate by their acceptable use policies but not my friends selling ammunition or a gun raffle for charity (although this might work for charities):

Prohibited Items and Activities:

...

  • Firearms and Weapons - includes ammunition, guns, rifles, shotguns, pistols, other firearms, knives (automatic, spring-loaded knives, throwing, etc.), brass knuckles, or other weapons.
  • Gambling Businesses - includes online gambling (including poker), lotteries (including sale of lottery tickets), games of chance (including sweepstakes and raffles), sports forecasting, or odds-making.

Chet also suggested Yahoo! but from what I could tell they require PayPal, a Merchant account, or $40/month whether you have any sales or not.

I'm going to spend some more time on the Amazon site and maybe convert over to them from PayPal.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 5:06:19 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I think that's a good argument for keeping people away from guns. The two just do not mix well.

thinkagain2
July 31, 2009
Comment to Taking Gun Laws Seriously.
[I'm of the opinion "thinkagain2" is unable of thinking or making a good argument.

His, or her, thesis overlooks the possibility that some people need to be killed. Those men herding the naked women and children to the trenches prior to being shot... they needed to be killed. Right then and there. Keeping guns away from the people that needed them enabled evil.

It also overlooks that guns are used to stop violent attacks on innocent people--most of the time without anyone getting killed.

And just who is going to keep people away from guns? I'm betting it will be other people with guns.

No thanks. In addition to having a serious logic flaw that would violate my Jews in the Attic Test.--Joe]