Author Archives: Joe

Quote of the day–Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell

Posted on by

Merry Christmas to you all.  Let’s all enjoy it.  The Grinch is coming to town on January 20th, and we don’t yet know which presents he’s going to try to take away.


Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell
December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas
[I was tempted to use something I got in email which was more in line with my true feelings, but little overdone, about Christmas:



Having returned from my customary drive around the neighborhood shouting “Bah, Humbug” at everyone, with a reindeer dummy strapped to the car, Merry Christmas to all!


But I didn’t want to go through the bother of sending an email to get permission to use their name and Sebastain captures my mood a little bit better.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Korwin

Posted on by

This reading of the Bill of Rights is potentially a very dangerous thing.


The government is not likely to take kindly to direct threats to its powers — which the Bill of Rights specifically represents — especially as it is held in hand by an angered people. The very idea that the people would take it upon themselves to examine government’s abuses, usurpations of powers, abuses of authority, and contraventions of the very Bill that is meant to constrain government actions, is inflammatory.


At what point do the people, oppressed and incensed by the abuses of government, act directly to limit and yes punish those responsible? When are “public servants,” feigning to guard us against infringements, brought to justice?


Alan Korwin
December 23, 2008
Bill of Rights Day
[Read the whole thing. Especially the part about heads on pikes.–Joe]

March pinup is non-functional

Posted on by

Did anyone else with the ParaUSA 2009 calendar notice that the March pinup is non-functional?


Here is the picture:



If you don’t see the problem click on the picture for a close up. People not familiar with 1911’s will be at a slight disadvantage in discovering the blocking issue.


Update: In response to comments and Tam’s post I present the following pictures from my Para Gun Blog 45 and what I think is Caleb’s Gun Blog 9 (I stole the picture from the header on his blog):



Para Gun Blog 45 safety.



Para Gun Blog 9 safety.


I admit I could still be wrong on this point. I do not think the safety on March pinup has been modified as seen in either of the two pictures immediately above. Therefore in order for the Para SX745S pictured on the March calendar to be function one or more of three things would have to be true:




  1. The safety is mounted in a slightly different place


  2. The safety requires less travel


  3. The grips mount in a slightly different location

I think each of the above are very unlikely to be true. Therefore I stand by my claim the safety in this picture is unusable and the gun was for display purposes only.


Anyone want to make bets on the topic?


Update2: Kerby Smith from Para Public Relations says:



From the camera angle you can not see that the safety is relieved on the bottom side. The SX745S which is the March 2009 Special Edition pistol can be ordered with or without the Crimson Trace Laser grips. The ones that are ordered with the Crimson Trace Laser grips will have the right bottom side of the safety modified. And that is why the Crimson Trace Laser grips are coming factory installed as an option so we can make sure the safety works with them.

Quote of the day–John Kenneth Galbraith

Posted on by

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it’s just the opposite.


John Kenneth Galbraith
[While true this overlooks the net result of the people living under the two different systems. Under capitalism there exists a wider disparity between the richest and the poorest. But the poorest of the poor is no worse off than if they were living under a communist regime. And the average person is far, far better off living in a capitalist system. But many people don’t make it this far in the logic chain. Their is a strong tendency to stop after reaching the point about there being a wide disparity between the richest and poorest. As near as I can determine their is a belief that this is “not fair”. Pointing out to them that “life is not fair” does not remedy the situation. Apparently there is some deep seated belief that things can be made to be “fair”. I think the problem must be attacked at a lower level–that is the definition of “fair”. It is not “fair” that the government should take (at the point of a gun) the property and/or services of one and give it to another. That “unfairness” can only be reduced by reducing the size of government and the taxes paid.


I’m reminded of this quote by Phil who posted about Arianna Huffington saying Capitalism should be as dead as Communism. I’m tempted to say something comparing the status the brains of both Huffington and Marx but most people should be able to draw the obvious conclusion without me leading them there.–Joe]

Quote of the day–David B. Kopel

Posted on by

For all ages, the fatal gun accident rate is at an all-time low, even as the per capita gun supply is at an all-time high. The annual risk level for a fatal gun accident is 0.22 per 100,000 population–about the risk level for taking two airplane trips a year, or for a whooping cough vaccination.


David B. Kopel
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent. D.C. v. Heller

What the frak?

Posted on by

The implications of the existence of this computer program are disturbing. There must be something else going on other than what the author is saying:



SHELBY- No suspects. No leads. Just a gun found at a crime scene.
While some law-enforcement agencies scratch their heads wondering how to start investigating the case, the Shelby Police Department uses their own investigative tool to solve the crime.
An Electronic Tracing System, or “E-trace,” is a free Internet-based system which allows authorities to create or look at the criminal history of a gun used in a crime.
“It gives me added information on a weapon,” said Lt. Tim Walker with the department’s vice and narcotics unit. “It gives me somewhere to start and gives the past actions of the weapon.”
Walker said E-trace has made a world of difference when investigating and solving crimes.
“It is comparable to a person’s criminal history,” he said.
Once the criminal history is created on the gun, it can always be traced in the system, Walker said.
“If a gun is being continually used in criminal activity, we can see who is using the same weapons over and over,” he said.
Walker said it also helps with “straw purchase” cases, when convicted felons who are unable to purchase guns rely on people who can.
Walker said if felons have someone to purchase the gun and a crime is then committed, they can track the person who is buying the guns.
“It starts to create a link between the person and the gun,” he said.
The program is provided through Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and is free to any police agency. Shelby officers say it is a part of their daily routine.
“When any weapon is submitted to evidence, it prompts us to trace the weapon,” he said.
In recent weeks, police used E-trace to help with with local cases. One gun taken into evidence showed just 60 days from time of purchase to the time of the crime, Walker said.
In the past, if police found a gun at a crime scene, they would lock it up and wait on fingerprints or any information pertaining to the gun.
Last year, the program expanded and is now used in every division of the department.
“It’s just one more trick in my bag,” he said.


For those unfamiliar with U.S. gun laws. It is illegal for the Federal Government to have a gun registry. Without a gun registry how can this program work? How can they “look at the criminal history of a gun”? It’s not like the criminal that used it updated the registry when they were done with it and sold it to the next criminal. What is the world is this about?


Ahhh… more research has revealed some disturbing information:



  • Governor Announces Historic Partnership with ATF to Trace Illegal Firearms
    E-trace is a nationwide database maintained by the ATF that lists a firearm’s first purchaser, date of purchase and the retailer from which it was purchased. The information is compiled from police records of gun purchases provided by local departments, but until today was only accessible by the ATF and the police department that provided it.
    …
    “Partnering with the ATF, the New Jersey State Police will now have direct access to national firearms purchasing data. This will streamline the tracing of illegal firearms back to the source, giving us a better shot at finding and arresting the person who pulled the trigger,” said Colonel Rick Fuentes.
  • Seven Central American Countries to get eTrace
  • Background Paper: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Program on Tracing Illegal Small Arms (June 2, 2001)
    Of particular interest is Access 2000, a computerized link between the NTC and firearms manufacturers and wholesalers. This nexus allows the NTB instant access to the computerized records maintained by cooperating FFLs in order to complete traces more efficiently. Currently, 12 FFLs are online. ATF is continuing this working partnership with the firearms industry in order to facilitate the tracing of crime guns by use of a standardized automated system. Instant access allows NTB employees to query the history of an individual serial number, thus speeding up the tracing process and reducing the trace-related cost to industry. Of course, 24-hour access allows NTB employees to query the history of firearms as necessary.

As of February 2000 there were five manufactures and distributors using Access 2000: RSR Wholesale; H&R, 1871; Smith & Wesson; Davidson Wholesale; and Taurus International Firearms.


What appears to have happened was that the ATF came up with an Internet based system for the distributors and manufactures to make their sales records available to the ATF to save the businesses in the supply chain time and money in complying with trace requests. This did not give the ATF access to individual purchase records. It merely gave the ATF more immediate access to the FFL who would still have to look up the 4473 to get the sales record for the ATF. It appears this original functionality was extended, perhaps in an illegal manner.


The enhanced functionality which I question the legality of is that it appears some states have records of individual firearm sales which they are sharing, in an online way, with the ATF.


I will be sending out emails to lawyers familiar with gun laws I know to get clarification of the law on this point. I’ll let you know what I find out.

Quote of the day–Jerry M. Burger

Posted on by

The conclusion is not: ‘Gosh isn’t this a horrible commentary on human nature,’ or ‘these people were so sadistic. It shows the opposite — that there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize.

 

Jerry M. Burger
December 20, 2008
Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study
[This is a reproduction of the infamous Milgram Experiments. I must conclude that this is either a facet of human psychology or at least a facet of multiple cultures. These results have tremendous impact on everything from the Holocaust, Jonestown, and civil rights to gun confiscation. Do not count on people to “do the right thing” if they are given the option of using the excuse “I was just following orders”.–Joe]

Boomershoot 2009 position 64 available soon

Posted on by

Position 64 will become available today, Saturday December 20, at about 12:00 noon Pacific Standard Time.


Sign up here.


It is on the Berm which means shooting benches are discouraged.


I’ll be on the road traveling from the Seattle area to Moscow at the time so it will depend on cell phone coverage the exact moment I open up the position. Just keep refreshing the web page to get the first available opportunity for the spot.


Update: Due to an error in my blogging software this post did not appear at 9:35 AM like I thought it did. The position was made available at 12:00 noon as planned and it was filled 21 minutes later.

Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

Posted on by

Self-defense classes, particularly those involving training women to use handguns, often help to provide women the sense of self-worth necessary for them to feel equals in civil society. See Martha McCaughey, Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women’s Self-Defense (N.Y. Univ. Press 1997). Women who take such classes no longer see themselves as powerless potential victims, but as individuals who may demand that their rights be respected. There is some evidence that men recognize this transformation and alter their conduct toward those women. As one study noted, “[t]he knowledge that one can defend oneself – and that the self is valuable enough to merit defending – changes everything.” Jocelyn A. Hollander, “I Can Take Care of Myself”: The Impact of Self-Defense Training on Women’s Lives, 10 Violence Against Women 205, at 226-227 (2004). Therefore, even if women are never placed in a position to defend themselves with a firearm or their own bodies, there are less material but no less compelling justifications for allowing them that ability. E.g., Mary Zeiss Stange, From Domestic Terrorism to Armed Revolution: Women’s Right to Self-Defense as an Essential Human Right, 2 J. L. Econ. & Pol’y 385-391 (2006).


M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent in D.C. versus Heller.

Nice article on guns and gays

Posted on by

Primarily this is about the Atlanta chapter of the Pink Pistols. But would I find particularily interesting is that the writer included the point of view of a group that is opposed to the Pink Pistols. This group says:



“…we say no to the use of weapons — we are anti-violence,” she said.  “If someone from the Pink Pistols feels they have to arm themselves to be safe … we can’t agree. Most often, we find, their weapons are used against them.”


Maybe it’s just my bias but my reading of it is the statements of this anti-violence group are so weak it actually makes the Pink Pistol’s position stronger.

Weinstein defines “reasonable”

Posted on by

A few days ago I posted about a blogger that anticipated great changes in this countries gun laws with the incoming Obama administration.

 

He noticed the traffic from my blog to his and “clarified” his position on my blog saying he respected the Second Amendment only wanted “reasonable” changes in our gun laws.

 

Today he tells us what he thinks are reasonable changes:

 

 

    1. Ban assault weapons from private possession

 

    1. Ban .50 caliber (armor piercing) weapons from private possession

 

    1. Allow local communities to determine what is appropriate for their circumstances. If cities such as Philadelphia and Washington D.C. feel that stricter gun control laws are needed than state or federal law provides, they should be allowed to govern their particular situation. The view (and conditions) from Idaho can be significantly different from major urban centers such as Chicago, LA, and NYC.

 

    1. Improve oversight of corrupt gun dealers

 

    1. Limit the number of guns an individual can purchase in a month. This will reduce the number of guns purchased with the intent to sell them illegally on the street, also known as straw purchases.

 

  1. Mandate that sales at gun shows include criminal background checks. This is a major loophole in current law.

 

Yes. His ignorance is showing. Please play nice as you introduce him to the realities of guns and gun law. His comments are open. Here is my first lesson:

 

 

    1. The definition of “assault weapon” is so ill defined and nearly always is based merely on cosmetic features, not function, that any such ban boils down to bans on guns that someone thought looked “evil” or “ugly”. Beyond that the percent of crimes committed with guns that met the definition of “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 Federal ban was so small that the weapons “feet” and “hands” are used to commit more murders each year than the banned firearms. Even if the criminal intent on using such a gun in a crime failed to find a substitute weapon and did not commit the crime that would have been enabled had they had such a weapon the drop in the crime rate would have been less than 1%. Hence any claim for an “assault weapon” ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?

 

    1. To the best of my knowledge only one .50 BMG gun has been used in the commission of a crime in the last 30 years. Hence any claim for a .50 caliber ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?

 

    1. You appear to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. I presume you also support the 13th Amendment. It then would appear the two amendments should be treated in a similar manner in their application. Hence I must conclude that you would also advocate the states and cities determine what is appropriate for their circumstances in regards application of the 13th Amendment. If I am in error on this point please correct my misunderstanding. Once we are clear on this point then I can better respond to your “reasonable” suggestion.

 

    1. I wasn’t aware there was a list of corrupt gun dealers that were lacking in oversight. If some gun dealers are known to be corrupt then they must already be in violation of some law or rule. It would seem to me that prosecution, pulling their license, or fines for violations would be more appropriate rather than “oversight”. But no matter, I am skeptical there is some large problem with gun dealers in this country. What evidence do you have that would tend to indicate I am wrong?

 

    1. Straw purchases are already illegal. How would this help? This type of law has been passed in numerous jurisdictions. Can you demonstrate any reduction in the crime rate from these restrictions?

 

    1. Sales at gun shows are no different than sales at gun dealers. Background checks are always required when you purchase from license dealers. There is no loophole. The Brady Campaign has been telling this lie for years to the point most people believe it. It is not true.

 

  1. In my first post I suggested you study and answer Just One Question before proposing more restrictions on a specific enumerated right. You do not appear to have done this. Please do so. I think the answer will dramatically affect your response.

Another Boomershoot position available soon

Posted on by

I’ll be making another Boomershoot 2009 position available sometime this weekend. Probably about noon on Saturday. I’ll post the details when it’s actually available.


In closely related news I got an email from someone today who, in part, said:



i have my countdown clock on my desk and it is 124 days and 13 hours till i leave for the boomershoot…


I probably should feel the weight on my shoulders with so many people making this a big event. But except for a few days of the year I have fun doing this.

Quote of the day–Phil @ Random Nuclear Strikes

Posted on by

I swear that they must have an IQ limit to enter public office these days or something.


Phil @ Random Nuclear Strikes
December 19, 2008
I’d say “He’s giving it to them”
[I think of it as politics being the free market at work. If someone has any brains and/or integrity they avoid politics. The effect is the same however.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Xenia Huffman-Scott

Posted on by

Quote me. I said something clever earlier today.


Xenia Huffman-Scott
December 18, 2008

Video from Seattle firearm ban hearing

Posted on by

 

Listen to the Washington Ceasefire representative. A partial transcript of her testimony:

We vigorously support this cities efforts to reduce gun violence through this common sense regulation. We think that firearms don’t have a place in our parks or city events. We think that our parks and city events will be safer without firearms. And we think those of us who feel safer that way have a right to our own personal feelings of safety just like someone who has a right to have a firearm has a right to own their firearm. And we feel like this is a good rule that has been adopted by jurisdictions across the state that is designed to balance both our interest in public safety and our interest in the right to bear arms. And we believe this sort of policy will help keep our parks and city events safe places for us to be.

Emphasis on “feel” in her verbal testimony. No facts–it’s all about feelings. If she felt safer if dark skinned people had a dusk curfew would that make it a “common sense regulation”? Would that be “designed to balance both our interest in public safety and our interest in minority rights”?

Kristen Comer, as well as Mayor Nickels, need to answer Just One Question as well as read the Washington State Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently they think feelings are more important than facts and specifically enumerated inalienable and guaranteed rights.

Retrieved from the bit-bucket

Posted on by

I just discovered some posts I made in previous months were not made public (stupid blog software…). Which explains why I didn’t get any comments or links to one that I thought was really important…


Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

Why be rational, when you can stoke fear instead?


Bruce Schneier
December 16, 2008
Buying Fake Nintendo Consoles Helps Terrorists
[This applies to so many things.–Joe]

Timewarp Tuesday

Posted on by

Borrowing a concept from daughter Xenia I present Timewarp Tuesday:



My parents, myself, and my two younger brothers.

Breaking news–Incident at Microsoft building 118

Posted on by

I walked across the street to the cafeteria in building 117 and noticed there was a fire alarm going off in building 118 and lots of people were standing around. Microsoft security was parked outside and I thought it might be a fire drill. It was a little odd because usually they do those in the morning.


When I came back with food in hand there were three firetrucks and a “Battalion Chief” SUV parked outside. Then I saw the water shooting out from the front door. A sprinkler?


Something unusually is definitely going on but there isn’t any smoke and I didn’t see hoses going inside the building so it probably isn’t too serious.




Notice the water shooting out from above the door?

More Seattle gun ban news

Posted on by

From the Second Amendment Foundation yesterday:



For Immediate Release:   12/15/2008


BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is asserting that he has the authority to skirt Washington State’s long-standing firearms preemption statute, but in a 2006 letter to House Speaker Frank Chopp, he admitted that state law prevents him from taking any such action.



The letter is being made public at tonight’s special hearing at City Hall by Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation.



In his letter to Speaker Chopp, dated May 4, 2006, Mayor Nickels acknowledged that “State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”



“This is what Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office told Mayor Nickels in October,” Gottlieb noted. “Despite all of his bluster over the past six months, it is evident now that Mayor Nickels has known all along he cannot ban legally-carried firearms, by executive order, by ordinance or by wishing upon a star. He knew this in 2006 and he was reminded of it two months ago by McKenna’s office.



“Mayor Nickels has tried to capitalize on a single unfortunate incident at the Seattle Center,” he continued, “in order to push his long-standing anti-rights agenda. More than 20 years ago, the state legislature wisely enacted our common-sense preemption law that is now preventing the mayor from acting like a monarch, answerable to nobody. Essentially, he wants to use executive authority as though it were a royal decree, to not only defy state statute, but also to violate our state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provision.



“The May 2006 letter to Speaker Chopp clearly proves that the mayor knows he cannot legally do this,” Gottlieb said. “If Mayor Nickels goes forward with this ban, he will leave the Second Amendment Foundation no alternative than to take immediate legal action to stop him.”



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 600,000 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.


And today:



For Immediate Release:   12/16/2008


BELLEVUE, WA – When a cross-section of firearms owners gathered at Seattle City Hall Monday night to oppose Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’ gun ban scheme, the mayor was nowhere in sight to defend his plan, and the Second Amendment Foundation wonders why.



“If ever an audience reflected the kind of diversity that elitists like Greg Nickels normally rave about, Monday night’s turnout of gun owners certainly measured up,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “There were gays, straights, men and women, including one self-described feminist Democrat party activist. I was proud of the broad spectrum represented by the firearms community.



“Under any other circumstances,” he continued, “Mayor Nickels and other Seattle establishment insiders would be drawn to such a group like moths to a flame. But these were law-abiding gun owners, outraged over the mayor’s arrogant plan to ignore state statute and advice from the state attorney general. In short, it was an audience of citizens that Nickels and his ilk claim to represent, saying that he doesn’t. The mayor wanted no part of such a public embarrassment.



“Mayor Nickels started this controversy by proposing the gun ban,” Gottlieb observed, “yet he lacked the intestinal fortitude to defend his scheme before the very people who would suffer. Elitists like Nickels are always quick to sneer about ‘cowardly gun owners,’ but when he had the chance to face them, he vanished.



“Many department heads were there to take the heat,” Gottlieb added, “except for Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. It is not clear whether he skipped the meeting because he doesn’t care for armed citizens, or because he was still out looking for his stolen pistol, which is more of a threat to public safety than anybody who testified at Monday night’s hearing.



“This proposed gun ban is nonsense,” he concluded. “It will not prevent a single crime. It will only leave citizens more vulnerable. As usual, Mayor Nickels chooses symbolism over safety, and he is clearly afraid to face the people whose rights he plans to abrogate.”



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 600,000 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.