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. 

We're All Going To Die!

And with that bit of common sense out of the way, can we all stop panicing?  I'm the last person to object to over-the-top hyperbole to make a point on one's blog, but all the wailing about last week's Presidential Executive Orders mostly seem to assume we elected Obama to the office of God instead of merely President.

First off, both executive orders deal with congressionally mandated entities; the President doesn't have the authority to alter either acts of legislation without obtaining Congress' active assistance in doing so.  The Civilian Marksmanship Program is now a 501(c) (3) organization with a federal charter from the US Congress.  The President can order a freeze on re-importation of FMS firearms, but the rest of the CMP's chartered activity remains unaffected by my reading of the order (on a personal note, I have never bought a firearm through the CMP, but I've bought ammo in multi-hundred round lots).  Further, the effect of this latest executive order is exactly nil on the existing firearms CMP has for sale not to mention all the privately held examples people already own.  With all that in mind, just how reasonable is it to declare "the end of the National Matches" as a result?  I agree that the CMP business model is potentially severely impacted by this executive action, assuming Congress very uncharacteristically doesn't get all huffy about executive office infringement upon legislative prerogatives.  As regards the Presidential bootprints on Congressional charters, the Congress has yet to be heard from (and we all have a role to play there).

Secondly, my response to the executive order regarding NFA trusts is here.  I recommend the same course of action to all my fellow citizens.

President Obama's gift for empty bluster is certainly a matter of national concern.  I suggest a considered response that leverages the efforts of one part of our national government in support of its (and our) interests will better ensure his bluster stays that way (at least as regards our civil rights).  To that end, activities like this are much more on point and effective than they are seemingly credited with being.  Recent thoughts on influencing the political process in the context of gun rights are here.  Declaring defeat plays no part in my thinking and neither should it do so in yours.

And for the record, TSRA is not the only organization working to support gun rights in Texas - there's a decent argument to be made that they too often work in opposition to gun rights that don't directly involve National Match-related shooting (Open Carry of more than rifles for only one example).  If TSRA would support and hold IDPA/USPSA style matches for rifles (3 Gun is an obvious example here) I for one would be much more attracted to TSRA membership.  TSRA getting behind and pushing the idea of incorporating the NRA's Eddie Eagle gun safety program in all Texas schools along with sanctioned small bore (.22 caliber rifles and pistols) competition between all Texas high schools would offer numerous avenues by which to attract added membership in the group.  Having a focus on National Match shooting is an admirable and even a necessary ultimate goal for TSRA to build membership around; excluding all other shooting in pursuit of that goal confines the organization to the fringe of Texas politics and lifestyle, which is a pity.

Cha-Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes

Bob S. from over Dallas way lists the changes to Texas gun laws that came out of the most recent legislative session.  Of particular note was SB299 getting the Governor's autograph; this makes explicit that there must be an obvious element of intent to having your pistolen be seen by another.  The whole "print" thing was not part of the law as it was, but an inadvertent display got you the same response as waving your gat around in the Brookshires parking lot would.  Now, not so much, which is an important step toward getting more widespread approval of (or at least comfort with) the idea of open carry.

SB864 "Reduces the number of hours needed for a new concealed handgun license to 4 to 6 hours.", and HB48 "... does away with the class room and demonstration of proficiency requirement to renew a Concealed Handgun License."  The class time for a new license is cut in half and renewal is now just an online written test via the DPS website.  And the lack of any Class "A" misdemeanors or any felonies, of course.  :)  Bob made the point about a lot of instructors not liking these changes, which caused me to comment:

There’s a common perception that class length correlates to class price. Also, a shorter class time requires the instructor actually have some skill at presenting the information in the time available, something that hasn’t been as much of a factor up to now.

It’s still a legislatively mandated sellers market, so I’m sure even the worst of the whiners will adapt easily enough. Your point about student responsibility is true enough, but the same could be just as truthfully said about high school too.

Mad props to Bob S. for rounding up all this data, but the citizens of Texas are all over the place when it comes to guns (despite the seeming overwhelming belief to the contrary outside the state) and I tried to make the point that making political change is necessarily a gradual process if you want to avoid turmoil:

I’ve gradually come to the opinion that CHL is basically just a form of political liability insurance.

People have been trained (mostly via entertainment media – who get it wrong even worse than the news media does) to be afraid of another person wearing a gun openly. CHL avoids the in your face nature of open carry and establishes some (however minimal) standard citizens must demonstrate before going around strapped. This gets the pols off the hook electorally and allows the rest of the populace to not be disturbed by the obvious presence of more-capable-than-they people around them.

At some point the default position of fear will modify and open carry will become much more legislatively possible, but politics is always a process (and nothing is ever final as long as the legislature can come back into session ). I’m sure Texas will eventually arrive at open carry, but the need for political liability insurance will make that a more gradual process than any of us will likely be all that pleased about. It’s just how we make change happen without breaking things.

Getting people to adopt the belief that they are going to have to pass judgement on the person instead of whatever tool they may be wearing is going to require a pretty extensive period of adjustment.  Working out how to do that in a mutually acceptable fashion won't speed things up either.  But that's basically what will be required for open carry to become "normal", that we all ignore what the person has on and concentrate on the person's actions instead.  Once that is achieved, people actually complete the adjustment pretty quickly if events in Arizona in recent years are any measure.

Gradual modification of common beliefs through the political process necessarily will require acceptance by all of us of the lethargic nature of the legislative process itself.  Frustrating, but there it is.

About That "Trust Gun Loophole"

Last night's Squirrel Report podcast ended up being mostly (there was also boob glue) about President Obama signing an executive order that:

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/obama-announces-new-gun-control-measures-targets-military-surplus-imports/#ixzz2dTjhO37E

With such inspiration as this, what's a citizen to do?

I can't speak for you, but this citizen created a new NFA trust about 1:00pm CDT today, over the phone (go to www.tlsnfa.com or call (877) 448-6839 and ask for Nancy Blum and you can do the same thing for yourself).  There are no changes to the legal requirements for establishing an NFA trust. 

Let me repeat that: THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING AN NFA TRUST.

Yet, of course.  The BATFE has not issued any changes to the established NFA regulatory process, President Obama or no.

So Alan, get yours now while the getting is still good.

Anniversaries and such ...

It is the fashion to note the achievement of ... what, still breathing?  Tam makes note of her doing so for for the past 8 years today, and very happy I am that she has chosen to do so in such an entertaining and informative way, too.

I, on the other hand, don't get all that wound up about all that; it's breathing, I've been doing it mostly successfully for almost 60 years, for the last 7+ here.  So, duly noted and observed, I guess.  Now, if I can just figure out this whole "content" notion, maybe I'll be on to something.  :)

Congratulations Tam, very well done and a standard for the rest of us to attain to.

Naval Gazing Power

Richard Fernandez has written a convincing description of why and how the Obama administration might be in the process of responding to the alleged chemical/biological attacks reported to have occurred in Syria recently:

The administration is appears convinced that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its own population, according to the NYT and may be moving to chastise it. The BBC however cautions that there may never be any evidence actually the chemical weapons violation. “UK Foreign Secretary William Hague warned that evidence could have been tampered with, degraded or destroyed in the five days since the attack.”
With the BBC innoculating the administration against future media accusations of ‘faked’ WMD evidence by declaring any proof imperceptible in advance, the NYT describes the administration’s possible game plan. “WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs options for responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, his national security aides are studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.”

Wretchard then goes on to link a piece at medium.com by David Axe in which are described specific US Navy assets and capabilities well able to destroy-in-place any war-fighting assets the Syrian government might currently possess.

Which causes me to ask (again); why couldn't the US do essentially the exact same thing to the still-not-quite nuclear armed Iran too?

It isn't as though the Obama administration has any intent to actually invade either place (and what follows is key, so pay attention), nor is there any need to to achieve the strategic objective of denying development/usage of "weapons of mass destruction" to aggressor states (or anyone we don't happen to like all that much really).  There is no expectation of US troops occupying Syrian territory, only that US .mil air assets destroy Syrian offensive war-making facilities and equipment.  Entropy naturally follows as a result.

Why isn't doing the same exact thing to Iranian nuclear (and all the rest of the arsenal as long as we're about it) development and deployment facilities and equipment equally justifiable under the precise same political rationalizations evident in the Syrian situation?  Are we to believe that the Iranian pariah state is somehow magically more capable than is the regularly Russian-reinforced (or, at least, resupplied) Syrian military (not to mention the various other combatants rampaging about the Syrian territory and skies).

All of which is why I long ago decided that Iranian nukes are a strategic distraction, and worry over same a mark of advanced gullibility.  Not a tactical one note; destruction of Iranian capability is readily achievable, all of which effects the calculus of using a weapon, but nonetheless remains a minor strategic consideration.

Iran does not possess the capability to prevent the naval force described by Mr. Axe from doing to it what is apparently about to be variously gratefully received by the Syrians just any ol' day now.  Waiting for the Islamic Republic leadership to draw undeniable attention to themselves is an unconscionable failure by the American government, and has been for at least the last ten years.

OTOH, initiating the Iranian (Air) Campaign under cover of the public Syrian effort would be a bit brilliant, wouldn't it?  I know, never happen.

Jeff Bezos Bought The WaPo

... and consternation and apprehension are the most common result, with the usual helping of FUD to give the "news" a generous helping of misdirection and doubt.

I have no doubt Our Man From Amazon had a pretty clearly worked out plan for making the Washington Post a viable news reporting business venture again long before he started scrapping his pennies together to throw at the Graham family and their stock holders.  Many of the questioners and doubters seem to assume he simply must continue operating the paper in the established (and financially ruinous) fashion because that's how they get paid, don't you know.

My bet; NOT!

Just one easy example as to how to improve the print news reporting model follows:

Hire 250 bloggers around the country, 25 of which are experienced print reporters (columnists, etc) who have successfully continued the practice on their blog.  Pay all of them $1,000/mo and the experienced reporters twice that.  The experienced reporters "supervise" the story collection/reporting efforts of 9 of the others in a given story classification (politics, style, sports, etc).  All of a story's contributing writers/bloggers receive a percentage of a stipulated payment for each story published.  If no more then 30% of the "staff bloggers" are actually in the D.C. area, then any story, however national in orientation, would have a local and regional context included if only by dint of each contributors individual perspective.

Once this model is established (say a year, maybe 18 months tops), double the staff bloggers with the new hires being located in some other country than the USA.

At which point, The Washington Post spends a couple million a month at most and has original, unique news reporting wholly independent of any other reporting operation on (or off) the planet, all of which is for sale or syndication.  Along with the usual advertising revenue.  Probably with the actual "print" (as in on actual news print paper with all that implies) version as a premium option for the gentry readership.  I also expect to see podcast coverage of on-going or specific issue reporting to become part of the post-Bezos WaPo model too; read the initial story then download the podcast to listen to on the commute to work.

Not that Jeff needs my help with any of this, but I think this easily demonstrates that the established process to ruining a news reporting business isn't his only option; also, that I really don't know what I'm talking about here.

But this guy does.

It Must Be True, I Read It On The Internet!

Like most of Western Civilization apparently, I read Instapundit regularly.  Proving even law professors are still human, Glenn Reynolds occasionally gets it wrong (in fairness, he links a National Journal story - I don't mean to imply this is an honest example of his original writing).  While this all could prove to be a difference between filter options when straining legal gnats, I'm going with these folks who proffer a differing opinion about the legality of packin' heat in the Post Office car park here:

Legal Update: I'm sure some members are aware of news articles which are following a case coming out of a Federal District Court in Colorado. The various articles are suggesting a decision of that court now allows the possession of a firearm in the parking-lot of federal post offices nationwide. Our initial research on the decision suggests that this is simply false. First it is important to note that the ruling being referenced came from a District Court and NOT a Court of Appeals, meaning it holds no legal precedent. Also, even in this specific case, the circumstances for which the judge ruled were extremely specific and included conditions which may or may not apply in your specific case. We intend to publish a newsletter with a full legal analysis, but in the mean time, DO NOT BRING YOUR GUN INTO THE PARKING-LOT OF THE POST OFFICE IN TEXAS.

IANAL (which is why I pay those that are), so I really don't have an independently formed opinion to offer on this.  For now, better safe than sorry would seem to be the course to follow, at least until a better considered reading of this legal ruling becomes available.  I look forward to reading Glenn Reynolds further thoughts on this (along with the world of other stuff he posts daily of course).

Just For The Record ...

I too commented on Heidi Yewman's Ms Magazine blog entry and, taking my cue from Joe Huffman I reproduce my still-awaiting-moderation comment from Sunday afternoon here:

@ Ms Yewman

(although, from the articles photo credit, I’m assuming it’s properly Mrs. Yewman)

As one of those hairy guys (who actually wasn’t at Starbucks because I think they make horrible coffee) who also routinely carries a concealed firearm (and would open carry if I could), may I offer a genuine technology user tip? Which is, whenever you find occasion to buy a device about which you are honestly ignorant (or only just not as well informed as you would desire) as to the safe/normal function of the tool, the responsibility for becoming so is on you, not the person (or website – Hello Amazon) selling it to you.

Basically, the law exists to prevent abuse of others person or property and the 2nd Amendment makes acquiring ownership of the means to do so for one’s self as widely available to Americans as one’s demonstrated willingness to avoid doing abusive things to others. Which logically extends to your ownership and use of potentially abusive tools or devices.

Tony (and your friendly neighborhood cop) had no obligation to make you safe in your ownership, you did – and do. In future, would you please make certain you understand the function and safe use of any other devices you might purchase or otherwise come into ownership of? Before you leave the sales counter? Tony will be remarkably patient and helpful in answering your questions for at least as long as the money remains in your hands instead of his. As would most other sales people I would imagine and not just those who are licensed Merchants of Death.

BTW your choice of a Glock in 9mm was indeed a good one. I encourage you to wear it with pride – not only in the quality of your property, but in the certainty of your (hopefully to be acquired real soon now) mastery of the basic laws and practices governing the safe and accurate use of it. From personal experience (as a client, not through any actual need thankfully), I recommend these fine people as a resource any gun owner should be familiar with.

Welcome, fellow gun nut.

Now I'm assuming she lives in the Pacific northwest region, so emulating Joe's offer of assistance learning about her new gun is right out; it's just too long a commute from there to Texas.  Oregon and Washington states both are open carry states so either is a possible setting for her project. 

I'm not prepared to second-guess her intentions in writing this series of articles, her history of anti-ownership of firearms notwithstanding.  I won't be surprised if reasoned discourse breaks out in up-coming pieces (not to mention the comments section the magazine provides), but I also wouldn't be surprised to read she discovers she both likes the actual shooting experience and discovers some measure of merit to the (from her previous experience) opposition position.  Should she do so, writing about it in some depth would certainly create added interest from the more usual readers of Ms magazine I suspect.

Whatever her personal final judgement regarding ownership of a gun might prove to be, I hope for both her and her audiences sake that she is as completely honest and forthright about her experience over these next few weeks as she can be.  Doing so, and perhaps equally importantly being seen to do so, is what will give her judgement worth and merit to all of us, so I truly wish her well in this endeavor.

Who knows, maybe she'll show up for next years Boomershoot and write about that journey of discovery. 

Away Game Stats

Phil Bowermaster takes a good look at the flag as table cloth spectacle in HGTV's recent "unforced error".  I particularly like his assertion that "... concerns about flag desecration are just a highly specialized instance of political correctness" and a version of hate speech laws, which led me to opine:

I think this entire controversy can be summed up as, “How much should we regard the flag used in the HGTV presentation as a re-iteration of THE Star Spangled Banner?”

Leaving aside the whole just how large of a table are we talking here question, I think it an honest statement that Americans generally regard our national icons as possessing unique and, if not precisely sacred then at least desirable and due-of-respect, patriotic qualities. The question would seem to come down to, how far does such expression of respect extend?

If HGTV had made it explicit that the table setting was “… a piece of cloth with [flag-like] colors on it”, there wouldn’t have been anything like the response received. Far too many Americans have had family members buried beneath just such a re-iteration of a cloth with colors on it for such a casual display to be anything other than profoundly insulting to the memory of their honored dead.

At the very least, HGTV should have been aware of, and taken pains not to offend, such wide-spread and deeply felt sensibilities. As too should the commenters making light of the offense being expressed.

As if …

The Smithsonian link is an interesting source of trivia on a whole host of fronts, but what it also explicitly makes plain is that The Star Spangled Banner wasn’t always a national treasure and icon and that the progression of events that lead to it becoming so was and remains a process we Americans continue to develop. HGTV just happened to wallow all around in that process and now probably wishes it could wipe it back off again.

Cable bundling will no doubt save them, but I bet a whole bunch of network execs are calling into question the thesis all publicity is good publicity right about now.

 In an effort at full disclosure and all that, HGTV has announced:

"This was a regrettable use of our flag and it never should have happened,” HGTV said in a statement late Wednesday. “We sincerely apologize and have removed the post from our website. We want to assure our fans that HGTV is proud of the American flag and everything it symbolizes for our people.”

All of which pretty much only makes the whole thing worse.

I'm sure they do regret it, if only for the reasons I point out above.  Just as a quick strategic aside, when you puke on your plate in public like this, don't sweep it off the table, cover it decently with a transparent effort to make amends by pointing out something like the Smithsonian website I did and make a teachable moment of your apology.  Thank your audience for their assistance in expanding your base of knowledge and encourage them to do so when you inevitably prove your humanity (which is "to err") yet again on some future occasion.

Not bury it away from plain view and hide behind the sack cloth (which is colored how?).

Finally, and on a much more important note; Happy Birthday, Dad.  Our shared uncertainty about the impact of humanities carbon footprint on the world around us notwithstanding, asking anybody to blow out 80 candles all in one go still seems a bit much, so this instead.