Month: May 2008

Misleading Info on Firearms Transfers

The state has set up a web site to inform people about firearms transfer laws in Pennsylvania.  Dave Markowitz takes the state to task for providing misleading information about what the law actually is.  Handgun and NFA transfers have to be done through an FFL or the County Sheriff’s office.  Long gun transfers between private parties are allowed, provided neither individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm.  Seems the state is leading people to believe all transfers have to go through an FFL.  From Dave:

Guntransfer.org clearly reflects the Philly-centric antigun bias. By fooling people into thinking that private party transfers of any gun are illegal in PA, they are looking to create a paper trail. All gun transfers which go through a licensed dealer first require the transferee to pass a background check conducted in Harrisburg by the Pennsylvania State Police. As you may be aware, a few years ago they were sued for creating an illegal registry of gun owners. As it turned out, the State Police won their case when the court ruled that the records which they were compiling did not meet the statutory definition of an illegal database. Nevertheless, it is still a de facto database of gun owners in Pennsylvania.

Our supreme court ruled that because the database wasn’t all inclusive, that it wasn’t a “registery,” which is prohibited by the Uniform Firearms Act.  I doubt this is a nefarious conspiracy to create a paper trail, but it’s definitely not good that a state agency is spreading false information about state law.  This is something we ought to bring up with Attorney General Corbett.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Open Carry Dinner Gone South
  2. Registration in Pennsylvania
  3. Arguments Heard in Act 192 Case

Shooting Advice From Mr. Completely

Go have a read of this.  Mr. C is a pin shooter, which is a bit different than the prevalent discipline at my club, which is Metallic Silhouette.  I think there are similarities though.  I find myself in a bit of the beginners scramble to find a setup that works well for me.  But I am still struggling a bit with the basics.  I think Mr. C is very correct on this, which I think is true for all pistol disciplines:

I also learned that the faster you try to shoot, the better your trigger control needs to be. 95% of the mechanics of pistol shooting is trigger control, and trigger control isn’t something that comes easily. Most of the top shooters shoot in excess of 20,000 rounds a year, and to get really good trigger control you need to not only practice a lot, but practice regularly. If I don’t practice for a week or so, I really notice the drop in trigger control. Fortunately, it returns fairly quickly!

Silhouette is a bit different, in that I am continuously told I need to slow down, rather than rush.  Silhouette is timed, but it’s not a race.  You have two minutes and five shots to knock down five animals.  Tonight I scored 23 out of 40 in indoor with my Ruger Mk.III, where we use 3/8th scale animals at 25 yards, scaled down (about credit card sized for pigs and rams) to simulate distance for when we shoot outdoors.  The top shooters score anywhere from 36 on a bad night to 40 (perfect score) on a good one.  Anything over 20 is a good night for me!  Most of the times I miss, it’s due to me thumbing the gun left with a poor trigger squeeze, or it’s due to breaking the trigger at the wrong moment.  At this point I can tell why I miss shots, but I’m still working on avoiding the mistakes.  Some things I’ve been observing:

  • You can’t give a poor shooter good equipment and make them better.
  • Good equipment will make a good shooter better.
  • The very best shooters can outshoot good shooters even with poor equipment.

While most of the top silhouette shooters are shooting either Anschutz bolt action pistols, or TC single shot breech loading pistols, I’m sticking with my Ruger for now.  I want to make sure I’m shooting as best I can with inexpensive equipment before investing in something better.  I’m definitely experimenting to see what works well and what doesn’t, but I think one mistake beginners tend to make is thinking good equipment will make up for bad fundaemtnals.  It won’t.  The only thing that will make you better is getting out there and doing it, over and over, and learning what works and what doesn’t.  I’m still getting started.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Shootoff Next Week
  2. AR-15 Lower Assembling Advice
  3. Improvement

Here Comes Everybody: A Review

Sounds like an interesting book to me.  I an intrigued by this part:

One of Shirky’s central arguments centres on the concept of mass amateurisation. In the same way that the printing press brought the written word to the masses, the internet is equipping anyone with an interest with the tools necessary to take on almost any task. In public affairs parlance, we might call the same concept by a different name: democratisation.

Anyone who has observed the effectiveness of well-funded NGOs backed by hundreds of thousands of supporters has seen its impact. This, Shirky would argue, demonstrates the de-professionalisation of public affairs.

We’re seeing that here in the gun rights movement.  Our political power has risen with the rise of the Internet and New Media, while our opponents have fallen.  If the premise of this book is correct, it will bode well for gun rights.  For the gun control groups, there is no “Everybody” to come.  I can count on one hand the number of comments and e-mails I’ve gotten supporting gun control.  Marshall closes with this:

While specialists will always be necessary to help clients navigate the vagaries of government, when it comes to making an impact, public affairs practitioners have a choice: adapt activities in light of the societal changes that the internet is sweeping forward or be tethered to methods and approaches whose effectiveness will steadily decline in coming years.

The NRA has been getting on board with this idea, slowly, but I think they understand it.  Our blog bash event in Louisville will be the first NRA Annual Meeting that will have bloggers, new media and Internet activists interacting formally with The National Rifle Association.  For many of us, this will be the first annual meeting we’ve ever attended, so it should be a good time.

The Brady Campaign, VPC, and many other gun control groups have yet not been able to capitalize on bloggers and new media.  In future battles, the Brady Campaign organization will become irrelevant, because they bear the burdens of a group that’s funded by a handful of wealthy donors.  The future of the gun control movement, and the only place it will find any real grassroots, is overseas.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Internet Purification
  2. Picking a Fight the Other Side Can’t Afford
  3. The du Toits are Back in the Saddle

Ex Post Facto & Lautenberg

One of the great injustices of the Lautenberg amendment, that prohibited people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms, is that it applied retroactively to people who were completely unaware their convictions imposed a firearms disability on them when, in many cases, they plead guilty, because the charge was just a misdemeanor, rather than spending the money to fight it.

Apparently the Supreme Court is planning to hear a case on this.  I think punishments applied to criminals applied retroactively does violate ex-post facto.  Will the judges agree?  I hope so, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy has more details here.  It seems the question at hand is a bit different than I thought.  The question is whether the offense needs to have a domestic violence component to it, or whether it merely means that any violent offense against a domestic partner applies.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Partial Weakning of Lautenberg
  2. Right to Keep and Bear Arms for DV Misdemeanants
  3. What Tiger Woods Says About Lautenberg

Quote of the Day

From TigerHawk:

If your answer to losing is to declare yourself “done with politics,” then you don’t really have the stamina necessary to be a participating citizen. Which is just as well. Democracy requires the continuing participation of the losers, and if you do not have the stones to play the game again the next time then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Giving up just reinforces the loss.  When handed a bad hand, like we’ve been handed this year with McCain walking away with the nomination, a redoubling of efforts makes more sense than quitting.

H/T to Instapundit

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Importance of Training
  2. Looks Like It’s Alito
  3. Quote of the Day

Di Fi Not Liking Proposed NPS Rule Change

This isn’t a rule that will affect her properly disarmed constituents, so I don’t get why she cares:

“I never thought I’d see the day when the Interior Department of the United States would allow weapons – including concealed weapons – to be carried freely in our national parks and wildlife refuges. To me, this is appalling, and puts both people and animals at risk.

Don’t worry Diane, California prohibits guns in parks.  You won’t be able to carry there, since you’re so upset about this.

This change makes no sense. It would create an incoherent, ineffective, and inconsistent patchwork of policies – across the country, and in some places within the same national parks. For example, Death Valley National Park is in California and Nevada. California prohibits loaded and accessible weapons in its state parks. Nevada does not. So which state law would apply at Death Valley National Park?

It’s pretty simple.  The portion of the park in Nevada follows Nevada law.  The portion in California follows California law.  I thought that was pretty clear in the rule.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. National Park Carry Hysteria
  2. Another View on National Park Carry
  3. Not Much Change for Alaska