Defeating mass shooters

It seems apparent that no one successfully fired a single round to stop/suppress the Maine shooter during his attacks. We need to do better at teaching ourselves how to defeat such attacks before they can escalate. 

2nd Amendment anyone?

Famously, the M-16 battle rifle is a development of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The fully automatic/semi-automatic difference seems to be the dividing distinction between military rifle and civilian rifle. At the link below a fully automatic turret-style heavy machine gun system is (deliberately) generically described, along with a brief history of its development.

Question: since Gatling type guns are covered by the 2nd amendment as not requiring a special license for a citizen to own, how soon can we expect a privately developed civilian version of the weapon system described in the linked article? Bonus question: what relevance does such a development have regarding civil unrest, or even military invasion, here in the US?

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20200607.aspx

Righting Gun Wrongs

Despite my exercise of Point of Personal Privilege in his comment section recently (see: here), I quite admire Kevin Baker's writing(s) on firearms, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and human rights generally (a few days off escaping the day-to-day cares of life can be spent to good effect in his side bar :)), and I wish to take this opportunity to point out another of his essays: Universal Background Checks. As is usually the case with a Kevin Baker essay, there's a lot involved which makes summarizing challenging, but I think this captures the essence:

Everything you do in the U.S. (with the notable exception of VOTING) requires a state-issued photo ID.

• Alcohol? ID
• Tobacco? ID
• Buy or rent a place to live? ID
• Buy a car from a dealer? ID
• Travel by commercial air? ID
• Check into a hotel? ID
• Purchase Sudafed? ID

Anyway, you get the point. So here’s my suggestion:

Everybody who needs a state-issued ID gets a background check and a new ID. If you are a prohibited person, somewhere on that ID will be this symbol:

If you’re not prohibited, you get a green circle (don’t want to trigger the sensitive by putting an icky gun on their ID). Everyone that already has a driver’s license or a state-issued photo ID gets a new one with one of the two symbols. Any new IDs issued, the applicant gets the background check.

As he later acknowledges, this would entail some considerable added expense (and I think might come into conflict with already established Smart ID legislation now universal to all states in the USA), but I concur with his judgement that, "It’ll cost a lot of money and won’t prevent any crimes, but that’s what “gun control” usually does. But hey, we’re DOING SOMETHING!!"

I have an alternative suggestion to Kevin's and hope to read his (and your) thoughts in response.

Since the US Constitution, specifically to include all of the amendments thereto, is an empowering document to all legislation within the USA, I suggest that a national form of ID - while generally along the lines suggested by Kevin - would be the more constitutionally consistent approach to addressing the undeniable problems that are part-and-parcel of the individual responsibility that comes with American national citizenship and legal residence. 

The US Constitution already requires a decennial census of all US citizens and residents, which neatly provides Congress with an already established government function whereby unlawful gun ownership fears might be substantially addressed. The United States doesn't have any form of civil national identification (as opposed to US military or government employee/contractor identification) other than a US passport, which is intended for use outside the boundaries of the country. My alternative to Kevin's suggested state-level ID is the creation of a United States Voter Registration Card explicitly as a form of national identification card for all US citizens and legal residents, irrespective of their personal employment status, state of residence, or other demographic classification.

By making a standard background check (effectively identical to that already in use for firearms purchase) a part of the decennial census process, we create a national identification document that clearly states each person's status to vote and to lawfully participate in all other activities constitutionally guaranteed to a citizen of the United States. Or not. Making a distinction between eligibility to exercise the right to vote (or other constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, many of which are age or otherwise restricted already) wouldn't have to be nearly as garish as the means suggested by Kevin, wouldn't necessarily be all that much more expensive than the existing census function (I presume here that there actually is an existing effort made to verify the respondents statements made as part of the census process), and might even prove actually effective in helping manage the unintended consequences associated with citizenship and legal residence in our Constitutional Republic.

As Kevin noted in his blog post excerpted above, there are already established forms of state issued identification intended for a variety of applications. By requiring presentation of a valid Voter Registration Card as part of the background check process already in place, we create a national database against which to compare state documentation already required to prove eligibility to exercise the freedoms guaranteed to citizens by the US Constitution, in this example to purchase a firearm. Form 4473 (the .gov document used to itemize eligibility to purchase a firearm) already requires a statement of nationality from the purchaser under penalty of perjury, so requiring presentation of a national ID document that corroborates this declaration (also made under penalty of perjury) doesn't seem to me to be excessively abusive to exercise of one's rights. Such a system needn't interfere with the already established process whereby citizens and legal residents of the United States who go through the modest expense and effort required to obtain a state-issued concealed handgun license (or whatever your state calls such an ID) to be exempt from the background check process at time of purchase, and indeed would offer a means to regularly submit all citizens and legal residents to the background check process entirely separate from (additional to?) that required by any state's concealed handgun licensing requirements. An added layer of security protecting citizen's exercise of their rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, as it were.

Gun writer and columnist Tamara Keel has made the point on her blog in times past that she requires display of a drivers license/ID issued by the state she resides in from anyone she sells one of her guns to as a matter of personal privilege (I hasten to point out that Tam is not a licensed firearms dealer and thus - like every other American - has no legal obligation to do so under existing US law, but has been buying for her personal pleasure a modestly impressive collection of firearms for some years now, which she upon occasion finds useful to turn some item from that collection into cash to subsidize other of her interests - demonstrating the blatant nature of the deliberate falsehood entailed in the phrase "gun show loophole" not coincidentally). I leave to the consideration of my fellow citizens whether, or to what extent, such a custom ought to be enshrined explicitly in law. Personally it is my opinion that making such an individual obligation (to assure ones self of the mutual legality of a private transaction) a legal requirement might be more usefully enshrined within existing laws enacted under the auspices of the 14th Amendment than otherwise, but IANAL (and aren't we all grateful for that?  :))

One final note from Kevin Baker, who has the well exercised habit of saying things so well:

You want to buy a gun, whether from an individual or a FFL dealer? Show your ID. If the red symbol is on it, no sale. If NO symbol is on it, no sale. If you don’t have ID, no sale. If you do something that makes you a prohibited person, you must turn in your ID for one that has the red symbol. If you don’t, five years in Club Fed on top of whatever sentence you got for the crime that disqualified you.

The state can’t build a database of gun owners, and everybody who wants to buy a gun gets a background check. That’s what I call “compromise.”

"The state can't build a database of gun owners", precisely because everybody (who isn't in some fashion a "prohibited person" due to age or whatever) is effectively licensed to be a gun owner as an explicit function of their citizenship. It is already against US law for the US government to require retention of firearms sales data beyond - three years? - by FFL's, and this particular prohibition shouldn't change as a result of these efforts.

Protecting the exercise of individual citizens freedoms as guaranteed under the US Constitution is of at least equal importance to protecting those same citizens from the illegal actions of those who choose to abuse the exercise of those guaranteed freedoms (far too many of whom sadly are also fellow citizens). Spending the money necessary to better achieve those two objectives rightly ought to take precedence as a national, state, and local legislative priority. A United States Voter Registration Card explicitly designed to function as a national identity card based upon the decennial national population census, is a mechanism whereby to achieve those priorities and is my suggestion of a "compromise" that all US citizens and legal residents can comfortably and (at least arguably more) securely live with.

How say you all?

Update: I see I've entirely failed to mention any possible time line for this process. How about something like this?

President Trump has famously said that citizenship will be one of the questions asked as part of the 2020 census. Beginning in 2023, all citizens and legal residents of the USA regardless of state of residence, may apply for a Voter Registration Card ID by including copies (Issuing state database links more probably) of their existing state-issued ID along with their 2020 census data as part of the application process. Such ID to be valid until two years after completion of the next scheduled decennial population census, whereupon issuance of replacement ID cards will be automatic.

That shouldn't be too hard to improve upon.

It's Amazon Pilot Season

Periodically, the good folks at Amazon.com present a selection of new TV series developed by people like you and me (well, me anyway; your fantasy life is your own) at Amazon Studios for Amazon customers to rate and review.  I want to recommend one particular program currently up for audience review, Cocked.

Brian Dennehy plays the family patriarch and gun business founder Wade Paxson.  Jason Lee plays the elder son, heir apparent and perennial ne're-do-well Grady.  Sam Trammell plays his younger brother Richard, who has made a life and career outside the family business and industry.

Wade Paxson has built a solid business catering to the traditional "Fudd" segment of the gun buying market; rifles and shotguns for hunting and target shooters.  Grady Paxson has spent all the family's available cash designing and manufacturing a new product line for the company, a "semi-automatic revolver".  Revealing further depth to the Paxson family structure, Wade's brother Rayburn has his own gun company, and apparently has Wade's shop thoroughly penetrated with his own people, as he also brings a "semi-auto revolver" to market - at considerably less cost.  Desperate to save the company he spent his life building, Wade begs (and otherwise coerces) his younger son to help stave off the pending disaster.  High-larity, as they say, not to mention drama and more than a little comedy, follows.

Cocked airs most of the usual memes and catch phrases anyone familiar with guns (or just gun debates) is familiar with - but does so in a reasonably neutral fashion, and occasionally quite indirectly.  As example, the commonplace pro gun ownership expression "when seconds count, a cop is only minutes away" isn't spoken in dialogue, but following a violent attack on Richard, the responding cop notes there isn't much he can do to catch the attacker or prevent another attack.  In another scene, Richard's wife accuses the family of "selling fear", to which Wade responds that guns are "just tools".  In none of this drama does anyone come off as morally superior, nor does anyone get spared from a sometimes too-revealing look.

I hope Amazon produces this series, and you can help convince Jeff Bezos and the boys and girls at Amazon Studios to do just that.  Follow the link above, watch the pilot episode, then click on the little blue Find out more link, and Take the survey.  You don't have to be an Amazon Prime member, but I expect no one there would outright object if you did join up.  Also, the show is rated TV-MA because, titties, violence and grown people doing some fairly tedious stupid behavior in somewhat explicit fashion.  Nothing too outrageous (which may be more revealing of my standards than anything else), but expect to have to field some awkward questions from the younger set if you let them watch with you.

Finally, there are 12 other pilot shows up for audience review at Amazon right now; I also recommend Mad Dogs and The Man in the High Castle as being worth your interest, pretty much in that order of preference too (tastes vary; get your own).  There are some kid-oriented shows too, but mine are raising there own kids these days, so I don't have to develop an opinion you would want to read about any of that category of programming.

No Amazonians or actual pilots were harmed in the production of this post.

The Second Amendment Supporter's Version Of Ted Kennedy

Tragedy knows no political boundary.

Oh Goody!

Just got off the phone with the Holster Maker For The Stars and my two (count 'em, 2) new croc-a-gator skin Valkyrie holsters will be on there way to me towards the end of next week.

It's birthday and christmas all wrapped up in one.  Literally.

I am gonna be soooo stylin'!

What Caliber For Brickbat?

Weer'd Beard has this whole "Gun Death" meme going in which he illustrates just how hypocritical anti-2A people can be in their political posturing.  In this example, Weer'd notes a common cause of death and injury from people throwing heavy items into highway traffic from overpasses.

This one resonated with me a bit more than usual:

Happened to my Mom ~35 years ago now, driving home from work on an LA area freeway. She was lucky really; she remembered seeing two middle- or high-school boys standing on the overpass as they tossed a concrete block into oncoming traffic – her, as it worked out. They tossed the block just early enough that it hit the hood of Mom’s car (breaking it into chunks) and then the windshield on the rebound, as it were. She lived, but the insurance ended up replacing the car.

The cops were sympathetic enough, and were honest enough to explain just how unable they were to identify which two boys on bicycles might be the one’s actually leaving the scene of the crime. Of course no one was responsible for adding some kind of fencing to the overpass to make this sort of act more difficult – until it happened to someone with the political clout to make it otherwise a couple years later. And then only to some of the overpasses that similar attacks had occurred from.

If terrorists were smarter than bored middle-schoolers, they would organize an attack campaign based upon this precise type of incident in any country they wanted to attack and then use social media to subtly influence people to rage at the “ineffective police protection” and “failed politicians” and the like. Fairly heavy trash items are free for the taking virtually everywhere. Turning empty bottles into fire bombs are only one of many easy, cheap possible embellishments.

Who knew egotistical psychopath YouTube posers would be the preferred enemy?

As Weer'd says, not a gun death so doesn't matter, right?  And of course, none of the examples of this type of attack to date are known to be the result of "terrorism".

OTOH I vaguely remember news stories from the early 80's of "union thugs" tossing bricks in just this fashion into 18 wheelers driving down the interstate for not respecting their declared strike; I'm sure I heard/read stories of drivers shooting at people in retaliation, so my titular question doesn't seem all that far out of the realm of possibility to me.

Doesn't have to be the religiously motivated of course, but at some point I think it pretty likely that someone with an existential grudge is going to decide that being effective is better than being famous, and then we really will be in for it, won't we?  When the daily commute routinely includes brickbats through the windshield, I'm going to go with "whatever caliber is immediately available" being the most common answer proffered in reply myself.

For A Given Value Of "Gun School"

Most people who carry a firearm have made some effort to resolve the question of Why to shoot. There are a number of widely respected instructors on How to shoot.  What I don't think we see often enough are classes on When to shoot.   This coming Thursday, I'm going to get to check my home study of the laws governing firearm usage in Texas with the pros.

You know how you can feel pretty confident you have a good grasp on the issues and facts?  We'll see.

Some Of My Best Work ...

... shows up on other people's blog; this time Say Uncle bears the burden:

the ACT-UP crowd actually put the gay rights agenda BEHIND.Which so neatly explains why ACT-UP basically owns San Francisco politics now – and thinks the rest of the country recognizing gays as “different, but normal” is a huge loss for gay rights.

Which will work as a metaphor for what follows.

As I understand things, OCT was started with the specific intention of influencing Texas politics toward legalizing open carry of handguns in the state, and deliberately chose to illustrate the logical consistency of that position by demonstrating the already legal public open carry of rifles and shotguns by Texans.

Subsequently, it appears that at least some of the affiliate groups (specifically the one in Tarrant Co. – much of Dallas, essentially – and Austin) have been taken control of by individuals who deliberately conflate state political activism with federal 2A activism, and manage to consistently achieve a completely predictable mess of both as a result.

Holding public rallies featuring citizens carrying their “long guns” in public in support of a desired state legislative change is (and has been) well received by most citizens in the state. Texas law prohibits the carrying of “modern” sidearms (defined in this case as being manufactured after 1899) on your body outside of a very few specific activities, but a sizable percentage of state citizens are licensed to carry them concealed. Making the point that the same people can carry all (Ok, a couple of :)) their guns at the same time, but some of them have to be kept out of plain sight, makes a legitimate political point.

And, if that was the message actually being sent consistently, most gun owners in other states probably wouldn’t get too excited.

By expanding the OCT effort to also challenge federal law regarding 2A exercise, the basic OCT message is obscured and activists from other states are understandably enough more than a little annoyed that their efforts on the national level are being inhibited by these people badly making an argument in support of a strictly state-level issue (no matter how many different states have a similar effort underway).

The part I find most annoying is that, mostly as a result of college football rivalry, the Texas legislature will probably go ahead and vote to approve OC of handguns (probably only to those who have a CHL) next session, because Oklahoma just passed their version of OC earlier this year. Which means that these dillweeds in Dallas and Austin will no doubt be loudly claiming credit for how effective their efforts were and what A-holes the rest of us were, etc.

At least I could go back to wearing T-shirts that fit next year (or the following, depending).

I’ve tried to make the point about this before, but the OCTers involved have a well-practiced routine of arguing the other point whenever challenged and dismissing any naysayer as being anti-2A and so unworthy of offering criticism (and mostly won’t even acknowledge what I say anyway) (not that I’m anybody special). Fortunately, the out-session committee work is being largely done over the course of this week (6/2 thru 6/6), so much of the urgency these people are currently feeling will recede shortly.

Hopefully OCT as a state-wide group will get a better grip on their group message discipline before next year’s legislative session. Also, anyone working in their own state (or on the federal level) can find plenty of lesson material for their efforts from all this – some of it even good (ask yourselves, how many of the other local Texas political demonstrations [using the same basic format] on this issue have you heard mention of?).

I should point out that I'm actually sort of sympathetic to the argument that the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" clause ought to take precedence in laws directed at firearms ownership, but this is a distinct issue from that of the strategy of political activism and the disturbing failure recent Open Carry Texas efforts have demonstrated in trying to achieve that change to Texas legislation.  Successful political activists focus all discussion on their one message; these guys are deliberately muddying their message while also giving support to their opposition.

As has been said before; stop helping.

Someone Is Wrong On The Internet (Maybe)

First place I saw it was at Weer'd Beard's and the consensus was that murder had been committed.  Then I read about it at Say Uncle, who thinks there is no "castle doctrine" or maybe "stand your ground" claim involved.  And finally I read it again at Pagun Blog (properly titled Shall Not Be Questioned) Another "Castle Doctrine" Case That Isn't.

With so much authoritative assertion on display, imagine my reaction when I read the Montana Code Annotated.  Better yet, don't imagine, read for yourself:

Montana statute seems to specifically say it is a “no duty to retreat” case.  

See Montana Code Annotated Sections 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of person, 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of occupied structure, 45-3-110 No duty to summon help or flee.* 

The first statute says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” 

The second section says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … only if:  

     (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault on the person or another then in the occupied structure; or  

     (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.” 

And thirdly, 45-3-110 reads in pertinent part: “… a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistence prior to using force.”

Kaarma and Pflegger were in the structure lawfully. Dede (the dead criminal) was apparently in the commission of a home invasion (unlawful entry of an occupied structure, much more dangerous then a B&E) when Kaarma shot him. Kaarma went outside the still-occupied (by Ms.Pflegger) structure and engaged Dede with a firearm, resulting in Dede’s death. 

Montana law would seem to support a legitimate claim of self-defense with the added justification of no duty to retreat from a lawfully occupied “location or place”. I don’t find any requirement in Montana statute that property must be secured in order for the above to have force of law (those arguing that Kaarma and Pflegger “set a trap” must equally believe that cattle ranchers are also guilty because they don’t secure their livestock from tresspassers). 

If that isn’t a reasonable (and actually word-for-word explicit) description of SYG and the so-called “castle doctrine” (verbiage which never appears in any state’s pertinent legal code that I have discovered so far) both, then I think we will just have to agree that we disagree on the definition of “reasonable”. 

As to anyone’s guilt or innocence in this matter, that’s what trials are for, aren’t they? I also have to say that the defense declaring this to be a SYG/CD case seems quite reasonable to me given the statutes that apparently address this type of action in Montana. We’ll see. 

* Source: Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States.*

Quite aside from the widespread reluctance to call the BBC on their bald assertion that Kaarma fired without saying anything (and implying that Dede didn't either) - something not otherwise in evidence, I find the equally widespread ignorance on display by at least three well-respected gun bloggers as to the actual statutory meaning of "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" in the Montana statutes to be the most disturbing aspect of this whole story.

I don't expect the BBC to get it right - I actually don't expect the BBC to honestly report the facts of this story whether or not they might support the pre-existing bias of that organization.  I do kinda expect at least as much effort to determine the actual facts of the law addressing this case as I made from those who seem willing to accept the mantle of "subject matter expert" that their respective blog reputations provide.  Everybody makes mistakes (and let me just say right now that IANAL and my reading of Montana statute could very easily be completely wrong), but the presumptive bias demonstrated in the reporting of all concerned takes the schaden right out of the freud, doesn't it?

Was this a legitimate case of self-defense or was it murder?  12 Montanans are going to have the duty to make that call, after being presented with all the facts (along with the evidence in support) and with a clear idea of what their states law has to say regarding killing someone in these specific circumstances.  A case to be followed without doubt and I hope we all do so as closely as our personal circumstance allows.

* A book I wholeheartedly recommend any gun owner own a copy of.

Some New Vintage Steven Den Beste

Which is pretty well described as a more concise blending of Vintage Steven Den Beste.  He replies to a correspondent who doesn't understand the nature and necessity of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution:

Let's rewind back to 1789 when the Bill of Rights was written. It was only 6 years since the Revolution ended. And the early battles of the Revolution were fought by men using their own weapons. (That's what the Patriots used in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, for example.) Those who wrote the Bill of Rights were acutely aware that the only reason the Revolution was possible was because of widespread ownership of guns.

The Revolution was fought because the British government was perceived to have become tyrannical, and the Founders were well aware that the new government they were establishing could in turn become tyrannical. They included lots of checks and limits on the government, but knew that in the end the only sure way to prevent that was if the people had the means to rise in revolution, again.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate check. That's why it was included in the Bill of Rights.

This is what you're not going to like: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the US are sufficiently well armed to fight a revolution, if a new one is needed. That's what the "militia" referred to in it is about: in that time the word "militia" referred to the kind of thing that happened in Boston at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, where all able bodied men grabbed their own guns and fought on behalf of the community.

Which means that issues like hunting or self defense are a distraction. The Second Amendment is about allowing citizens to own weapons which are good enough to permit them to fight against a tyrant's army and win.

Tyrants can be either foreign or domestic in origin (that turn of phrase shows up in the original too), but the essential strength of the USA's fundamental governmental mindset is taken from the largely unspoken understanding that excess oppression can be met with counter excess from almost anyone in the general populace, whenever it appears, whoever the source.

As Steven says, "It isn't a perfect solution, but there aren't any others which have been as successful."  This weekend in particular, it seems appropriate to apply this particular ray of clarity to this specific question.

A Question Of Carry

Uncle asks Appendix Carry, What Say You? and I chimed in with my recollective viewpoint:

My personal direct experience with firearms only goes back to the mid-1960′s, but my admittedly hazy memory of this type of carry was that it was for DA revolvers, SA revolvers with an empty chamber under the hammer or small semi-auto pistols carried Condition 3. Which was all a part of the concealed carry concept of a century-or-so ago; a concealed weapon was implicitly assumed to be intended as a surreptitious option for personal defense. No “fast draw” capability was expected, or even considered desirable as a safety measure. If the situation warrented a more pro-active weapons stance, you readied your gun for that circumstance beforehand or cussed yourself for not paying closer attention to your surroundings. 

I haven’t made any sort of historical research effort on this, but this is my memory of what the “old timers” (my grandfather and his age cohort) said when I first started getting seriously interested in guns back when. I personally have occasionally worn my S&W 431PD in a belly holster at 11 o’clock for a r/h draw, but I’m a few kilo’s away from that option being what anyone other than the Texas legislature would call “concealed” today.

 As Uncle and several other of his commenters point out, modern holster and firearms designs expand the possibilities of safe carry well beyond those of a more historical standard.  Also, modern personal training opportunities and standards alter what was historically considered acceptable (the 4 Rules are important, but were never really more than a recommendation) (let's see who is humor deficient).

Personally, appendix carry (inside the waistband, immediately to the right of center-torso) never has been all that comfortable for me, especially when sitting down or bending and twisting at the hips (as you do when lifting items into or out of a vehicle, for instance).  I own shoulder holsters, several IWB and OWB holsters, a belly band holster, pistol pocket guard and even a FAG bag (for when I need to legally conceal a gun but want to create a good bit of uncertainty amongst others as to whether or not I'm actually carrying).  Find the option that suits you best and carry your gun in the most situationally suitable condition you hope not to have to use it in.

Fun Show Today

Going to the local gun show today.  Not really expecting to see much of anything I'm really interested in actually buying, but we'll see.  This ain't the Indy 1500.

Would like to find a new Kel Tec PMR30.  Won't pay more than MSRP for one and would hope to dicker a deal for a gun and three spare magazines for ~ $500 Obamabux (plus the Governor's gratuity, of course - place wouldn't function without that).

I've gone over the Lucky Gunner ammo price list to use as a buying guide reference.  The ammo shortage is basically over, but we'll see just how far down the retail chain that message has gotten.  Some .22 (LR and WMR), .223, .308, .45acp and 9mm are all on the look-for list, but only if I can't get it delivered to my front door for the same price instead.  That's my version of the "immediate gratification" value of an ammo purchase (or most any other these days).  Me and Jeff Bezos have a relationship don'tcha know?

Maybe I'll find something to inspire a follow-up post.

Keeping Up With The Tam

During my wander through the blogs I ordinarily follow this fine Christmas day (and, to be completely honest, to fill in the time waiting for the laundry to finish), I checked in with TamaraK - as you do - and read this. 

Now, I already have one of these in .22 caliber and really wasn't expecting to get into .177 also, but given the steeply discounted asking price, I simply couldn't convince myself not to hit the "one-click purchase" button.

Amazon is pleased to inform me it (with the spare "5 shot pellet clip" and can of pellets) will get here this coming Saturday.  I guess I'm going to have to gather up some getaroundtoit and put this together.  I've lived in this apartment complex for 12 years, it's time to test the neighbors patience see if all of those on-time rent checks bought me any special consideration.  There's a strip of grass that runs along a fence line that ends in an L-shaped corner behind the maintenance building and is right outside my apartment door.  The perfect 50' semi-secluded spot for some quiet Sunday afternoon practice I think.  We'll see how many others agree soon enough.

So, thanks (again) Tam, and Merry Christmas to us both.

Open Forum On Open Carry

BobS has a long and detailed post about Open Carry efforts (and gun owner response to that and other issues recently).  Go and read it - seriously, it's way too long for any sort of excerpt to do it justice.

For once, I got first reply (one of the occasional benefits of working nights - you're still active when an early post goes up):

In all three of your main points I think the single greatest objection I can offer is that so many Open Carry activism efforts don’t come off as appearing especially inviting to the uninvolved (who have to be considered the primary audience for such demonstrations). Especially when the activists taking part in the event know that the opposition is going to do their best to misconstrue things, doing an event without making your message the lead story reported simply ends up not making your effort (and more importantly, your message) inviting to the uncommitted – and easy meat for the actively opposed.

If an Open Carry political activism event isn’t structured such that the casual observer can’t immediately tell that a political rally of some description is taking place, then you’re doing it wrong. And, in my opinion (and apparently many others), the Starbucks and Blue Mesa Grill efforts are both prime examples of that obvious message failure. This was not the intent, of course, but political activism is the second most common situation where the adage about making a first impression once is really important. Having the women and children direct their message (about gun safety and fun perhaps) directly to the Mothers Demand Action group would have been much more difficult for opposition efforts to disparage, particularly if an active on-line media feed was being transmitted live (or in predetermined segments via You Tube for example) while the event was happening. If your message is out first, opposition media efforts take on a less appealing appearance to the non-involved than otherwise.

Speaking for myself, the simple fact that firearms have been successfully stigmatized is simply a reality that must be directly countered for any political activism in favor of firearms ownership/use to succeed with the general (presumably non-firearms owning) public. Added to that, a political rally must look like a political rally to even the most casual observer. Unfortunately, Open Carry Texas hasn’t much succeeded in those two aspects yet, and certainly not in the two instances you cite in this post. Finally, pointing out that past efforts haven’t driven people into active opposition to your cause isn’t the objective – adding them to your belief is, and the data you present doesn’t show that to have happened at all. Sorry to be such a downer Bob, but not driving away your customers isn’t the same as winning them over (which is what activism is all about).

If you’re still open to suggestion after all that, consider having your members contact every politician of any description in Texas and invite them (and their family members) to participate in a gun safety and shooting outing, and offer them both limited editorial input to the resulting video content and use of the final recording for their future campaigning purposes if they wish. Open Carry Texas can be the low key sponsor for the event (and retain direct control of the message being presented) and the politician gets unique campaign material for the next election cycle. Win/win that the political opposition has a much more difficult time misconstruing to the general public (they are the political opposition, of course they think it all sucks – absolutely no one expects otherwise ). Politicians discussing gun safety (and seen on camera practicing same) along with specific aspects of Texas law regarding gun carry and ownership would seem a natural subject as part of any political campaign, so attracting volunteers shouldn’t be all that difficult (especially if you can show an example video – so make one of your members playing all the roles). Do make sure the pols understand that first showing of the video will be on Open Carry Texas’ You Tube channel (which already exists, right?).

 Social media is certainly a double edged implement, but using it to your advantage allows you both the direct use of the video as well as making "free" content for others to use in their media efforts (to their own purposes, so recognize who you're dealing with when you hand out your stuff).  Being politically active requires a level of vigilance at a degree of detail that most people (including me) aren't willing to exert ordinarily.  I wish Open Carry political advocates every success and sincerely hope my suggestions and criticisms are taken in that spirit (and even prove helpful).  I would very much like to see the day when people openly wearing a firearm is simply ordinary behavior indulged in by some people - and nothing more noteworthy than that.

Why Is The BATFE Still Denying NFA Transfers?

Just back from my local friendly merchant of death (and the only local NFA Class III dealer) who informs me my two suppressors are still being held hostage because the BATFE refuses to issue transfer authorizations - between manufacturers-to-dealers as well as dealers-to-private-parties.

The "government shutdown" is over, what's the justification now (other than because we can)?

Open Carry In Texas

BobS is hosting a discussion on OC as that applies to the peculiarities of Texas.  Some good stuff in the comments, including this questionable analysis:

I think the principal factor in the principle in question is (or at least ought to be), does the action result in attraction of others to the principle being demonstrated for? IOW does what we do attract others in support of that thing or idea? There’s a strategy involved here which IMO ought to focus more on making uninvolved people aware of their shared loss of rights and less on our defiance of those rights being abused.

To that end, I think the whole “long guns carried to someone’s place of public business” thing is overly confrontational – thus not attractive behavior to uninvolved fellow citizens – and overly done to boot. The Starbucks type of gathering might still be be an excellent locale for an OC empty holster demonstration, but these need to be more than just a bunch of (mostly) guys wearing empty holsters (which is great political symbolism BTW). There needs to be some actual political activism along with the eye-catching display of manly fashion accessories; signs, placards, maybe some brochures or flyers, perhaps an actual dedicated website in support of the political principle being demonstrated for.

Toting an AR/AK around town is just threatening/annoying unless it is as an obvious prop in support of a political thesis (say, a rifle with a sign in support of 2A attached for instance).

Here’s a specific suggestion: arrange a “activism date” with some friends at a public place where firearms aren’t expressly prohibited, print up a dozen flyers for each attendee to pass out in support of open carry legislation in Texas, everyone OC an empty holster (perhaps a few carry rifles/shotguns with signs attached that mention “human rights being denied to Texans”), solicit signatures for a petition to the legislature in support of OC legislation in the next session (doing so online thru the afore mentioned website would be best here) and invite the local media – being ready to play to their particular format interests especially.

Admittedly, all of this requires a bit more effort than casually getting a cup of iffy coffee while scaring the white people proles other customers.

Most of all, what is needed is a continuous sense of change in the activity/venue involved so as to imply a continuous advancement in the message being delivered – which in turn implies a reduction in resistance to the rights being exercised in a normal, regular fashion. No, the latter doesn’t logically follow the former – its politics; emotion and a personal feeling of common perception are the driving factors.

In short, OC supporters need to become an actual political organization instead of a gaggle of well-intended but slightly scary individuals. Toward that end, association with an established organization is the key. There are a number of TSRA members here in the Tyler area (here’s one with pictures from one of their recent events; also here) that have staged events over this past summer. Finding a Texas business to structure group formation around is what is desired; maybe these guys would be interested – I doubt I’m the only member who reads your blog.
The point at issue for me about Open Carry activism here in Texas is that there doesn’t seem to be that much outright objection to the idea of people carrying guns comfortably per se, but there is a lot of lethargy about building the legal and social hoops necessary for that change to happen. And, Yes, the hoops are necessary – politics, remember? Laws, courts, judges, district attorneys, cops – there are a lot of people who are already invested in the status quo ante, and people are generally lazy about doing anything different to what they are already comfortable/familiar with.

So, we need to build an organization that provides the support infrastructure so our individual acts of 2A activism can be easily combined into a state-wide effort, that attracts general citizen notice and acceptance (if not outright support, at least no resistance) of the political principle being pursued.

Prior to all that spontaneously coming into being, maybe just individuals going around openly wearing an empty holster all the time really is the simplest way to start. Not sexy or confrontational, kinda sad really, and there’s the hook; “it’s sad so many Texans have there human rights so badly denied them, don’t you agree?” If it’s not only about icky guns, people see opportunity for their pet interest too, and as long as they don’t oppose 2A rights/legislation we win.

 My objection to many previous OC events (notoriously at Starbucks) is that they appear to focus on the defiance of existing gun laws (or maybe just defiance to the existence of those laws) and not on gaining adherents to changing those laws.  If the existence of overly restrictive gun laws is your political point, giving the (however metaphorical) finger to those who abide by those laws doesn't seem the best possible means to actually changing (and ultimately doing away with) those laws.

Dum Ass Duz Dallas

From the Dallas Observer, the alternative newspaper/blog of events in-and-around Dallas County, comes this story:

"Two neighbors hear gunfire coming from the alley in the 10300 block of Plummer Drive. They round the corner to find a man with a gun standing over another man [subsequently identified as convicted tweeker and suspected burglar Jerry Wayne Hale]. When the neighbors announce that they've called 911 ..."

 That's not the dumb ass part:

"The first two officers to arrive saw [57 y/o William] Hall standing over a body. They order him to drop his gun, but he moves behind a privacy fence and out of sight. One thinks he sees him go into the adjacent house.
 

Three other officers, Joshua Wilson, Daniel Summers, and Julian McDaniel, arrive. They see the body lying in a pool of blood in the alley and move to provide aid. As they approach, one of the first pair of officers to arrive runs toward them, yelling that the gunman is behind him.

They turn to see Hall emerging from some overgrown bushes. They tell him to drop the gun. He racks the slide on the weapon and points it at the cops. Wilson, Summers, and McDaniel open fire."

And there you have it.  Even though the cops likely didn't roll up in their new armored assault vehicle (because a war on things-people-do-that-the-rest-of-us-really-don't-like-very-much is such a trivial and pointless distinction after all this time - crime always deserves the Catholic Option), stepping out of the bushes and racking the slide of your pistol is always the preferred option when approaching police.  Dumb ass.

In case there was any remaining question or ambiguity regarding the outcome of events:

"Both Hall and Jerry Wayne Hale were pronounced dead at the scene."

Clearly a failure to abide by gun control rules 2 and 4 because sometimes your target is willing and able to shoot at you!

Shoot, or No Shoot?

I had a disturbing thought while at work last night; how to tell the difference between an Open Carry advocate and a Somali Shopping Mall Suicide Squad member?  Before the latter starts shooting of course, as that tends to be both a bit of a giveaway and way too late to be helpful.

The last few days revelations about the makeup of the terrorist squad (at least three US nationals, one Canadian and an as yet undetermined number of UK citizens) have been tentatively identified as active shooters in the days-long killing spree in and around the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya (scroll down here for numerous links to reports on this and the terror attack generally).  All of which puts paid to the single most difficult-to-overcome aspect of putting such a terror action into effect in a N. American setting; the vast majority of active jihadists can't blend into N. American society well enough (or for long enough) to put together such an operation.  Being able to match a few foreign jihadists with a native jihadist overcomes that obstacle and vastly simplifies the logistics of organizing such an attack.  If nothing else, the Westgate Mall attack proves the viability of that tactic.

Which brings me the long way around to the Open Carry activists who carry long guns at public venues.

Yes, if doing so was legal before the Kenya terror attack it is presumably still legal now.  And, No, I'm not accusing anybody of aiding any enemy to freedom (religious or otherwise).  I am asking if this particular method of raising public awareness about our rights and freedoms might not be better retired from active use, given the general visual similarity between the terrorists and the activists as they enter a business or other open-to-the-public locale.

It seems a virtual certainty that there will be an over reaction (or just an ordinary mistake) by somebody should there continue to be individual or small group efforts to demonstrate in support of 2ns Amendment rights by openly carrying rifles and/or shotguns at non-shooting related venues, particularly as people become familiar with the images of the terrorists entering the mall in Kenya with their weapons openly displayed in a non overtly threatening manner.  Just like OC activists are prone to do.  Even if its just the cops responding to a panic'd call of "terrorists like in Kenya", the outcome of that can't be good for convincing people to consider supporting 2A efforts themselves.  And if an actual gunfight breaks out ...?

A basic tenet of strategy is to use the tactic(s) that offer least potential advantage to the enemy while still advancing your own position.  It's time for Open Carry activists to employ a different tactic to demonstrate in support of 2nd Amendment rights, there's just too much potential advantage to be gained by the opposition (not to mention the actual enemy) from continuing to do so with rifles and shotguns.

Circular Firing Squad ...

... Or showing the love, warts and all?

BobS. has a review and critique type post up on the recent Starbucks response to Open Carry activism in their stores.  He gives all sides a close look and asks useful questions.  You should go read.

My response in his comments:

I think some of what you point out is driven by the impulse not to improve or critique the opposition efforts. Most writers I’ve read on this topic have chosen to focus their commentary/suggestions on their own side of the issue as represented by the OC activists and how they might/ought to improve their efforts on all our behalf.

There is also a steady undercurrent of fear within the pro-2A community that makes these discussions ramp up quite quickly into some pretty brutal arguments. It isn’t all that long ago that the majority opinion was that 2A was all but dead as a practical matter and there exists a strong “flinch” amongst older shooters about overt political activism as a result. Since so many of the younger modern shooters don’t really have the memory of adult experience of practicing the sport under those conditions it’s almost a given there are going to be strong reactions against efforts that threaten any return to those conditions (such as giving anti-2A efforts any easy point of social disruption upon which to leverage there efforts).

I look at all this as a healthy way to continue to dispute anti-2A efforts while simultaneously strengthening our fundamental pro-rights position. The anti’s aren’t the audience; all the rest of humanity who hunger for greater individual opportunity and personal responsibility are. Our public disputes place the strength of our position on public display better than any possible paid advertising could.

 As we in the US continue our debates over the means and methods of enacting our rights, which often extend into disputes regarding the basic meaning of those rights themselves, we all ought to keep firmly in mind that we deliberately (if often seemingly unknowingly) do so in possibly the most public forum possible.  This is a good thing in and of itself (as it reinforces the very concept of "rights") and also encourages the interest and attraction of those who don't experience the reality of our contentions in their daily lives.  I will not argue for the idea that we should alter our arguments as a result, only that we should acknowledge the presence of the audience at our debates by presenting our points and contentions in as clear and open a fashion as we are each able.

And then go have fun shooting safely together after.

Update 1:12 PM, same day:  this from No Lawyers - Only Guns And Money seems pertinent.