The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
If you’ve taken enough new shooters to the range, you’ll run across one who becomes less frightened/disturbed/bothered by firearms, but they still don’t quite get why people enjoy shooting. Â It’s not that they have a bad time, they just don’t get as into it, and they are legitimately curious about people who do enjoy it. Â What do you tell those people when they ask why you are a gun owner and shooter?
One LA Times columnist wants to know before she writes her next column.
So now that it’s finally official, I think Comcast can expect our cancellation shortly after this goes live. Or sooner. Mix it in with a bundle that Verizon is willing to offer so that we get discounts on the phone & basic tv service, and there’s absolutely no justification for Comcast’s high prices.
Since my last Netflix-related post was unexpectedly popular, here are more topics for discussion:
My own answers will start the comments.
Dave Hardy has a law review article out examining the Stevens Dissent in DC v. Heller, here’s the intro:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER ESTABLISHED THAT THE Second Amendment’s right to arms existed as an individual right, with no requirement that the rights-holder be functioning as part of a well-regulated militia. While the majority opinion has been subjected to extensive review and commentary, the Steven dissent, joined by four members of the Court, has not. The dissent came within one vote of becoming the majority; it clearly merits close examination.
Had the dissent become law, the Court would have informed the American people, seventy percent of whom believed they had an individual right to arms, that their rights-consciousness was sadly mistaken. If done on the basis of sound research and reasoning, this would involve no more than the Court performing its duty. An examination of the dissent suggests, however, that the Court would have been taking this position based upon surprisingly thin reasoning and evidence.
Footnotes removed for purposes of quoting. I joke when I say light reading. It’s very in depth. I won’t have time to read it all until later, but it looks good.
Snowflakes in Hell just got an Internet upgrade. It’s been about four years since I signed up for FiOS Internet, and my connection was 15 megabits down and 2 megabits up. I noticed when I posted pics of my Webley Mark IV, it was getting pretty pokey when enough folks were downloading. I also noticed Verizon didn’t even sell my package anymore, so I quickly realized I might be able to get an upgrade without paying anything. Typically you have to ask, as Verizon will be happy to sell you slow service for yesterday’s price.
Calls to Verizon are aways rough, because I have an unusual account. When you call, they ask for a telephone number to cross reference account info. I have Verizon FiOS for Small Business, because I need a static IP so you all know where to find me. My phone number is a standard residential POTS line. Invariably they ask for your phone number to determine your account, which always sends me to residential service, who quickly realize they only have a phone account for me, and transfer me to business support, who then look at my phone number and say “Oh, this is residential service, let me transfer you back.” Â A back and forth twice, finally being able to say “No, no.. it’s a residential phone line, but I do have a Small Business FiOS account!” Finally I get to talk to someone, but someone who ends up being very nice and helpful.
Turns out I can upgrade to 20 megabits down and 5 up for the same price, but for ten dollars more a month I can do a whopping 25 megabits down and 15 up. Hell yeah, I’ll take that. Apparently I can also save money bundling my phone and TV service with my Small Business Account, which I couldn’t do before. I’m going to look into doing that. To make a long story short, Snowflakes in Hell now has over 7 times the upload bandwidth it used to, and I’m hardly paying any extra for it.
What two brothers are going to in order to get their permits approved for getting pistols before a ban goes into effect in Ireland. Â Doesn’t look good. How would you like to find yourself having to do this?
“[IPSC’s] not in the Olympic arena?†the Inspector asked. “No,†the applicant replied.
“I’d like to say that the Superintendent might have had concerns at the level of security but that wasn’t being mentioned to us at any point,†he said.
His brother took to the stand and described a Glock pistol as a semi-automatic 9mm firearm which is used in competition.
He said the gun is “popular because it is reliable and cheapâ€. “Is it fair to say it is easy to conceal?†Inspector Ruane asked. “If you were wearing a trenchcoat it would be easy to conceal any gun.â€
The Inspector told him he was engaging in semantics and put it to the applicant that a Glock pistol is “the weapon of choice to criminals in this jurisdiction.â€
The applicant said he was entitled to a licence under that legislation in place in October, 2008. “You were entitled to be considered for the licensing of a firearm†Inspector Ruane clarified. The applicant agreed.
Yes, before a judge, being treated as if you might be a common criminal, just because you want a Glock to do IPSC competition. You might hide it under your trenchcoat, you know. It’s the “weapon of choice” for criminals. Where have we heard that before? Never here.
It would appear that NRA is subtlety jumping into the Massachusetts Senate race based on their current PVF front page. (I’d screen shot it, but it’s been changing as I even link it.)
They don’t list an official endorsement, but they do remind gun owners that Sen. Scott Brown has an A rating and Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley has a solid F rating. They also put a shot of Sen. Brown up just as a friendly welcome to the page. Brown has previously been endorsed by NRA & the state affiliate in Massachusetts.
Rasmussen has Coakley up by only 2 points in the latest poll. In her desperation, she flew down to DC last night to beg lobbyists for more money. According to sources at the event, the Democrats are saying in close circles that if Scott Brown wins, health care stands a very real chance of dying where it is. Cap and trade will be more toast than it appears to be now, along with several other Democratic bills that they would try and pull out during the election year to pull their base out to the polls. In fact, Coakley herself was trying to scare fellow Democrats by saying that if she loses, no Democrat is safe in November. As Geraghty points out, the fact that she’s not safe in Massachusetts is a sign that few Democrats are really safe in 2010.
I’m kind of surprised that NRA is doing anything public for this race, even if it is just an infographic on their PVF site. Statewide, being pro-gun doesn’t help. Being anti-gun doesn’t help either. It’s just better to leave guns off the table for a large percentage of voters in Massachusetts. BUT, a robocall this weekend reminding members to vote for Scott Brown would be nice. A little GOTV effort is always useful at the last second.
UPDATE: Yeah, think this was a worthless reminder? How about this: Don’t be Virginia. There is no done deal for Republicans, conservatives, or pro-gun politicians in 2010.
Many of us, when we think of Webley revolvers, think of this iconic movie image, of Michael Caine and Stanley Baker playing Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead and Lieutenant John Chard in the 1964 movie Zulu, firing away with their Webley Mark VI in .455 Webley. Unfortunately for the movie, the iconic image is wrong. The revolver in question wasn’t introduced until World War I, thirty six years after the British Army fought the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. Nonetheless, the movie helped introduce more than a few people to the Webley, including me. 
When I noticed Century was carrying some Webley Mark IVs in their catalog late last year, I decided to grab one, since I had just renewed my C&R FFL. Delivered to my door a few days later. These aren’t very collectible revolvers, which their low price reflects, but they are in good condition, and should be a solid shooter, and a good introduction to the gun. The pistols are in .38 S&W, which is an older, than the .38 Special, and definitely more anemic than the man stopping .455 Webley. Unlike the Smith & Wesson designs, the Webley uses a top break reloading mechanism, where the entire barrel and cylinder can be moved away from the frame. This requires two hands to accomplish, so 
offers some obvious disadvantages to the more modern designs, but its’ still neat.
In the picture showing to the left, you can see the cross block safety that Century installed on these guns. That’s the main thing that kind of ruins these for collectors. Apparently it was done in order for Century to be able to import them under the ATF point system. Firearms explicitly listed on the C&R list can be imported by definition, without consideration to the point system (you can thank FOPA for that), but only the Webley Mark I is explicitly listed on the C&R list. These 
revolvers are C&R by virtue of the fact that they are older than fifty years. That gets it delivered to your door if you have a C&R FFL, but it doesn’t get you around the point system for importation.
In the picture to the right, you can see the origin of this particular pistol in Birmingham, England. I had wondered whether Century got these Webleys from one of the commonwealth countries, but I haven’t noticed any marks indicating that would be the case. I’m pretty sure that this Webley was never issued to any Commonwealth authority.
It seems difficult to believe that it was imported directly from England, since I would imagine their export laws for pistols would preclude that possibility. In the picture to your left, you can see the proofs I am speaking of (click on the picture to see up close). Apparently all guns sold in the UK had to be “proofed” by one of several proof houses. This was one proofed by the Birmingham Proof House. The BV is the “Birmingham View” proof, indicating that the pistol passed visual inspection. The BP proof is a black powder proof mark, and NP is the “nitro proof” mark for certifying it will accept smokeless cartridges.
In the picture to the right, you can see up close how the Gun Control Act of 1968 forced Century International to butcher this pistol’s hammer. This would be a good collector piece otherwise. I didn’t even get a picture of the importer’s mark that was stamped on the underside of the barrel, something Bloomberg is demanding we make deeper and larger, in addition to adding a standardized extra serial number, further butchering imports and ruining them for collectors. You can see from the bit of serial number I didn’t Photoshop out, that it begins with A5, indicating a manufacture date of 1953. Had this pistol been imported into the United State prior to 1968, it would have been legal to import untouched, and an excellent collector piece. Thanks to our gun laws, it’s a shooter. I’m happy to finally have a Webley, and someday maybe I’ll spring for a collectable one. But for now I’m just happy to have something new to shoot.
I spent about ten minutes talking with Chris Cox, Chief Lobbyist for NRA-ILA, about this Motion for Divided Time that was filed with the Supreme Court in McDonald, asking for ten minutes of the Petitioner’s time during oral arguments. Needless to say, it’s not often I raise a concern with NRA that I’m in a phone call with the head of ILA a few hours later, so NRA is taking the issue seriously, and taking blogger concerns about the motion seriously enough to give us that consideration. I will share with you what Chris did clarify with me, quoting:
NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. To that end, we fully support the Court incorporating the Second Amendment through either the Privileges or Immunities or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief NRA filed last November presents a clear roadmap to the Court for incorporation under both a Due Process and Privileges or Immunities analysis.
We believe the Court should reach the same conclusion — that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the States — under either provision of the 14th Amendment. NRA, as a party to the case, has asked for the opportunity to participate in oral argument to ensure that all options for incorporating the Second Amendment are fully considered.
Again, NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to see the Second Amendment incorporated against the States, whether through the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
I did convey to him that while I understood and could appreciate NRA’s core concern, that I did not think this motion was the appropriate vehicle for expressing that concern. I still stand by that. But this gives you some insight into NRA’s reasoning straight from the top. For the reasons I’ve already outlined, I’m not going to stand on NRA’s side in regards to this motion, but nor am I going to accuse ILA leadership of trying to ruin the case, sabotaging the Second Amendment, or other such nefarious motives people like to attribute to them. I believe their concern is real, but the manner they chose to raise it was inappropriate. I’m also cognizant of the fact that if it wasn’t for the groundwork laid by NRA and the people close to it over the past several decades, we never would’ve won Heller.
Over the three years I’ve been blogging, I’ve gotten to know a number of people at NRA. A few of them well enough that they’d be folks I’d be comfortable inviting out for a drink if I were in town, or inviting them to my house if they were in town. Meet a dozen people at NRA, you’ll get a dozen different perspectives, a dozen different sets of skills, strengths and weaknesses. I no longer think of NRA as a monolithic entity — some giant brain in Fairfax of singular thought and mind — either to be loved or hated, promoted or resisted. It’s an organization made up of people as distinctive and individual as you see on the many gun blogs around the Internet.
But most importantly, NRA is made up of us, the membership, volunteers, and donors, in addition to the staff and board members. If you’re going to set out to be a voice cheering NRA when you think they do right, and to try to convince and influence them when they do wrong, you have to first start with a realistic view of what NRA is, and what NRA is not. Next, you need to get involved, and for that there are many paths one could take. Get to know any board members in your area if you can. Get to know some staff. Become an EVC, or help out your EVC. Run a few local matches at your club. Get involved with a local club. Keep your membership current, become a voting member, and for God’s sake, vote in Board elections, and encourage your friends to vote too.
Every once in a while, NRA is going to do something we don’t agree with, which is inevitable, and understandable. The question is whether that disagreement is going to be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, or whether you will have a real voice. NRA is a membership driven organization, ultimately, but in order for that to work, members have to be involved to a greater degree than just receiving the magazine, and paying their 35 dollars every year.
Bitter did an excellent job of covering the candidate forum in our Congressional district last night, which highlighted all the folks who are lining up to challenge Democrat Patrick Murphy for his Congressional seat in 2010. I was disappointed that the Second Amendment received no consideration in the questioning of each candidate, but let’s face it, that’s not really the hot issue right now. We do have a wide selection of free market oriented candidates, but I think we need to be cautious, and make sure we’re supporting someone who can actually win. In determining what formula you need to win, it’s worthwhile to look at the district as a whole. Some facts:
I’m not a rigid believer in politics by the numbers, because so much goes into winning an election, but ultimately it is about getting enough votes to win, and in our district that’s going to mean carrying independents in large enough numbers to overcome the GOPs registration disadvantage. When I hear a candidate say they want to abolish the department of education, or get rid of the home mortgage tax deduction, I might be sympathetic, but those aren’t winning issues. Murphy is going to be tough to beat, even in 2010. He has a strong support base, and a lot of money. I want a candidate that can not only beat him, but hold off strong Democratic challengers. After last night, I’m concerned we don’t have that candidate. I can see why the County GOP might want to tap Fitzpatrick again. But given that Fitz lost to Murphy in 2006, I don’t think that’s him either. The GOP in Bucks County desperately needs some new blood, and unfortunately for us, it takes time to incubate talent at the local level, before someone with experience and ambition agrees to step forward. Last night we were long on ambition, which is good, but short on political experience, which is necessary. I am optimistic, because 2010 will be a hell of a year for the GOP, but my optimism is guarded.
It looks like Pennsylvanians are losing the NRA-PVF A+ rated Speaker of the House with Rep. Keith McCall’s anticipated retirement.
This makes the state elections much more important this year.