Carlos

Hi Krautwagen - you definitley need to blast away the old park; there is supposed to be a chemical remover for park but I've not tried it. The $20 Harbor Freight gun should work fine. As far as media, if you don't have a cabinet, then forget about expensive glass bead (though the finish it leaves is the best). Oxide is also on the expensive side for "single use" - no argument the finish is OK though. If you are just going to use it in the backyard or driveway & then hose it into the drain, then regular Home Depot sand would work (but wear a mask to avoid silicosis. I would try the Lauer Manganese park over any of the current Brownells solutions; I find Brownells over priced and until recently, their park was Zinc based with a "pre-blackener" - no thnaks, I'd prefer as REAL manganese black park. Please post a pick or two & let us know how it turns out.

You don't want to know what the pressure is doing to get to the point where you see "pressure signs" The answer is slower burning powder, lighter bullet - you're essentially looking for a SAAMI spec length major 9 type of load, so starting at the lightest end of the Open gun loads would be a good guess. You could also look at 3N38 as a possible player - slow and dense. Agree - during the brief period when I was shooting 9Supercomp (9x23) I used a compressed load of V V N105 - it was so dense and slow that I was unable to produce any pressure signs at all even with pistol primers. Apparently, N105 is very close in burn rate to 3N38. Use a light bullet and make the OAL as long as possible.

I wish I was surprised to hear about this sort of behavior from other shooters, but I am not. Rude, intrusive, "I WILL TELL YOU HOW IT IS" people are all to common at the range - especially at some of the MD ranges I used to go to, like the AGC. Why can't people just let us practice our CCW, IDPA/USPSA or other drills & leave us alone?

I do not see why not. We ran a USPSA & 3gun shoot at an indoor range that was 25 meters long by only 12 meters wide. The range has since burnt down and will not be rebuilt, but our website is still up: www.shootersparadise.com Also, there is a video on YouTube from one of our matches at Shooters Paradise.

In many cases, I believe these same individuals also collect many donated prize guns & other items donated to both USPSA and IDPA with the intent that they go the person with the best shooting performance - - rather than the most devious and ethically-bankrupt sandbagger. If this "never happens" or "rarely happens" - then why does it continually come up? Merlin - I hope your post catches someone's attention & we see an end to this crap.

Benelli pistol grip + mag extension over 5 rounds = felony (in all 50 states). Only pre-ban guns are exempt. There are NO compliance parts for Benelli yet. Since there are no compliance parts, a Benelli with these modifications screams out "felony!" from 50 yards away (unlike an AK that may or may not have internal compliance parts). While I like pistol grips on my 3gun shotgun, I would not do it on an imported gun, since you are only allowed to have a 5 round mag tube on it.

Any mild .45 ACP load should use the fastest burning powder you can get. The Fins - who make V V and who are supressor experts - swear by N310 for supressor use. It is super fast burning. Coincidence? Also, it is clean in part due to it being single base. Expensive though. Solo 1000 is single base. It is clean. It is fast. It is far less costly than N310. Clays also works well though its not single base.

Looks great and thanks for the build report! One quick Q. on weight though - with that heavy magwell, solid trigger and the heavier-than-usual Caspian frame (small window cut out) will the gun make the weight limit?

Ti comps have proven their effectiveness not only on "1911s/2011s" but also on all the "75s". At the American Handgunner a few years back, Angus used a Ti comp equiped-75 to beat every other design that showed up - and all the big dogs were there. As a design, its safe to say that the "75" has arrived.

Interview with Robert Levy (attorney for Dick Heller) predicting optimism after oral argument: (note - he touches on the topic of incorporation and mentions they chose D.C. to avoid the issue. Interesting to see what the Court will do with it, though I believe it will be a non-issue going forward). LINK TO TOWNHALL.COM interview "Second Amendment Optimism: An Interview By Bill Steigerwald Monday, March 24, 2008 Fans of gun rights and scholarly defenders of the U.S. Constitution alike were left pleased and optimistic by what they heard U.S. Supreme Court justices say March 18 during oral arguments for a case challenging Washington, D.C.'s, sweeping, super-strict gun law. The plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller argues that D.C.'s ban -- which essentially makes it illegal for private citizens to own handguns at all or possess rifles that are assembled or unlocked and ready to use -- violates the Second Amendment. Robert Levy of the Cato Institute agrees. The senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian think tank spent a lot of his own money and five years of legal plotting to make sure Heller -- the first Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court since 1939 -- made it to the high court. I talked to Levy March 20 by telephone from his home in Naples, Fla.: Q: What's your quick description of what District of Columbia v. Heller is all about? A: It's all about self-defense. It's about six plaintiffs originally -- and now down to one -- who feel at risk in the dangerous community of Washington, D.C., and they want to be able to defend themselves in their own homes. Washington, D.C., law says that they can't do that. There's an outright ban on all functional firearms, in all homes, at all times, for all people. And these folks have both a need to defend themselves and a constitutional right to defend themselves. Q: You played a very active role in getting this issue -- and this specific case -- to the Supreme Court. Why and how? A: Well, for about a decade I’ve been the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. I’ve been interested in a large number of constitutional issues, one of which -- maybe not even the issue I’ve spent the most time on -- is the Second Amendment. A number of events seemed to come together that suggested that this would be a good time. When I say "this" time, I mean February of 2003. That’s when the case was first filed -- more than five years ago. Those events included an outpouring of scholarship -- from liberals; we’ve always had scholarship from the right -- saying there was an individual right secured by the Second Amendment. There was a court decision down in Texas -- called United States v. Emerson -- that said the same thing. The Justice Department prepared an exhaustive legal memorandum that put the federal government on record in support of an individual right. The City of Washington had the most draconian gun ban in the country and also the most violent statistics in the country -- and the city of Washington is a federal enclave, so we didn’t have to come to grips with a fairly knotty constitutional question, and that is whether the Second Amendment even applies to the states since Washington is not a state. So all of that put together suggested -- plus the complexion of the Supreme Court; it was relatively conservative and might be considered to be favorable to a Second Amendment case; there hadn’t been a Second Amendment case in about 70 years -- that you have the circumstances for a legal challenge. Q: And that 70-year distance since the last major Second Amendment case is what makes this case so historic and important, obviously? A: Yes, I think that’s right. Of course, bear in mind that there were 140 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified during which there didn’t seem to be much controversy. So to suggest that there has been this debate going on for 70 years, yes, it’s true. But that’s because the Supreme Court in 1939 sort of created the debate by issuing an opinion that nobody has understood for seven decades. Q: Before that there was no question the Second Amendment gave the individual person a right to own guns? A: Not much question about it. There was no resolution of whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the states, so some of the states could have regulations. But the federal government was pretty much constrained from having any serious restrictions on gun ownership because of the Second Amendment. The first major gun law that was issued was in the 1934 National Firearms Act. That’s what was challenged in the 1939 case, and it was the National Firearms Act which required that certain weapons be registered and required that a tax be paid on them. It was determined that the National Firearms Act was OK; it was constitutional. Frankly, we wouldn’t dispute that now. We’re talking about a different sort of thing. We’re talking about a ban on all functional firearms, not a tax and not a registration requirement. We’re talking about a restriction on the right to defend yourself. Q: Based on the oral arguments on Tuesday, a lot of gun-rights advocates are optimistic. Should they be? A: It’s tough to tell. I’ve been involved in oral arguments where it looks like the justices are leaning in one direction and you wait and you get the opinion and, lo and behold, it goes exactly the opposite way. So I’m very reluctant to get involved in the prediction business. But I do think this: Everybody was concerned about Justice (Anthony) Kennedy because he’s sort of the swing vote on the court. Over and above his questions, Justice Kennedy actually made some statements from the bench that suggested that he believed it was an individual right. So I’m pretty comfortable that we’re going to prevail on that question -- whether or not there’s an individual right or whether it’s limited to militia service. I think we’re going to win that question. The other question, though -- since you can win that battle and lose the war -- is what kinds of regulations are going to be permitted. That’s a much closer call and frankly I’d just as soon wait for the opinion before I venture a guess. Q: What will the decision turn on -- support for the original intent of the Second Amendment that reinforces what it said all along? A: The first of the two questions that I mentioned -- namely, whether there is an individual or a collective right, an individual right versus a militia-based right -- will hinge on the items that you mentioned: The text of the Constitution, the intent of the Framers, the history of what was going on at the time and shortly thereafter, the overall structure of the Constitution and how this amendment relates to all the other provisions of the Constitution, and the general tenor of the Constitution; that is, what was it intended to do with respect to individual rights. All that will be taken into account in this first question. In the second question -- what kinds of regulations will be permitted? -- we may get into some policy questions. Do gun regulations work? What kinds of gun regulations go further than necessary to accomplish the ends that are sought to be accomplished? I think this is going to depend on how rigorously the court intends to review what is passed by legislatures. Legislatures generally get their way in this country. That’s what democracy is all about. But it’s not an absolute. They can’t, for example, pass a law that says you’re not allowed to practice Catholicism, or you’re not allowed to criticize the governor, or you can’t speak freely. Those kinds of regulations are not permitted. Our view is that a regulation that says you can’t have any functional firearm in your home is like a regulation that says you can’t speak freely -- it violates an expressed provision in the Bill of Rights. If the courts are fairly rigorous in their review of these regulations, then certainly the D.C. gun ban and probably some other regulations will be invalidated. If the court is just a rubber stamp and generally gives the legislature carte blanche to do whatever it wants, now that’s quite a different story. Q: If things go the way you’d like them to go, how wide of an impact will the decision have on gun laws around the United States? A: First, we would consider it a victory to get a two-part decision. The first part is that this is an individual right not limited to militia service and the second part is that the D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. If we get that two-part decision, then we will have considered it a tremendous victory. Now the court could go further. It could establish what standard of review it would impose on new gun regulations that come before it. This was the issue that I was just talking about: Is it going to be rigorous scrutiny where it requires the government to really justify its regulations or is it going to be a rubber stamp? Q: So it will scare off a lot of bad legislation? A: That’s quite possible. We would hope that the court would strictly scrutinize any regulations, because the right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s a fundamental right. It occasionally has life or death significance to be able to defend yourself. And those kinds of rights ought to be rigorously scrutinized when government intends to compromise or truncate the right, just as we do in the case of speech and religion. But the court may not go that far. It may simply go only so far as to say the D.C. gun ban just can’t pass muster and it is unconstitutional. As far as implications outside D.C., two things are going to have to happen. One of which is to flesh out this skeleton about which regulations can be permitted and which can not. The second is a question of whether or not the Second Amendment even applies to states. That has not been resolved by the courts. It has been resolved with respect to almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The courts have decided that almost all of the Bill of Rights do apply. If the states violate your right to free speech, religion, press, etc., you can seek federal redress under the U.S. Constitution. But that issue hasn’t been resolved with respect to the Second Amendment and it probably will not be resolved in this case, because D.C. is not a state. Q: What’s the next big Second Amendment issue you’d like to see the Supreme Court settle in a definitive way? A: Assuming that we win this case, I think the next big one we’d like to see is what goes under the name of “the incorporation issue.” That is, whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated,” via the 14th Amendment, to apply to the states. You’re likely to see that kind of litigation in a place like Chicago or New York or somewhere where there is really some pretty onerous gun regulations, but it is in a state or local context, not a federal enclave like the District of Colombia.

Ran accross this add http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&...88&t=529043 I know the for sale stuff goes in "classified" - but I'm not the seller & I don't know him; I just want to make sure all the 625s out there end up in competition shooters' hands instead of the back of a gunsafe someplace. Please don't contact me about the gun - I don't knwo any more than is in the add. Regards, D.

Nice to see the handiwork of a master craftsman. Good to know that there are still artists like your dad producing such work.

Ran accross a few articles on energy supply, policy, etc. from Wall Street Journal yesterday and ABC today, and thought some of you might be interested: Biofuels said to become crucial component of US energy supply Ethanol may damp Gasoline profits That last one about competing fuels is interesting: if there is serious competition between oil refiners and ethanol refiners, would that competition lead to competing prices? (ie price war) ?? Its not physically posible to build a gasoline refinery anymore. But building ethanol refineries/distilleries is still possible. Finally, HUGE SECTION OF ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF COLAPSES

Newfound respect for Alan Gura (attorney for respondent Heller) - I found part of an interview Alan gave AFTER the oral arguments where he can now tell us more about the strategy of the case at oral argument. The youtube.com link can be found HERE (David - I think paragraph 4 speaks to the Heller strategy as to "standard of review." d.) Alan Gura [attorney, Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia, on appeal as District of Columbia v. Heller]: "As advocates, our role is to respond to the actual questions posed by the Justices, in a direct and honest manner, which would hopefully make the Court more comfortable with our respective positions. That's it. Members of the Court questioned Petitioners’ version of history, and the Solicitor General’s unsatisfying standard of review approach. Predictably, in querying me, the Justices wanted to know if I endorse a practical, common-sense Second Amendment. The Court’s view of what is practical probably differs from that of extremists on either side of the gun debate. Petitioners, and to some extent, the Solicitor General, sanctioned the prohibitionist extreme: that a total ban on all handguns and all functional firearms in the home is (petitioners) or may be (Solicitor General Clement) constitutional. I was not about to mirror that by advocating for the pro-gun extreme: an absolute right not subject to regulation, and which encompasses machine guns. My decision to avoid extended discussion of social science data was conscious, and reflected the consensus of our team and everyone with whom we raised the issue. The social science overwhelmingly cuts in our favor, but it is the sort of argument best left for amici. Criminological data might make the Court more comfortable in reaching its decision, but ultimately the questions in Heller are legal, not scientific. A Justice is more likely to accept a legal position despite misgivings about its implications, than a social science position he or she finds debatable, at best. I was prepared to answer specific questions about various studies, but none came up. I was unwilling to actually raise the social science issue and turn the case into something it isn’t. Extended scientific discussion would have also invited more discussion of standards of review. But a core strategic decision made at the outset of the litigation, which may yet be vindicated, was to keep the case as narrow as possible by observing that these laws fail any conceivable standard of review. The Court does not decide cases not before it. To decide this case, it is enough to declare an operative individual right. Some Justices appeared open to that viewpoint, underscoring again our disappointment with the Solicitor General’s position. The one Second Amendment test we do have – for delineating protected from unprotected arms – is found in Miller. Nobody seems to like Miller much, but we do win our case if it is faithfully applied, as it was by the D.C. Circuit. So it would have made no sense for me to seek Miller's destruction and thereby start from an argument against precedent. Justice Kennedy could, and did, signal Miller’s deficiency, and that allowed me to discuss the issue. But it wasn’t my task to undo Miller, however desirable that may be. Along the same lines, several Justices appeared to have almost no use for the Second Amendment’s preamble, but as an advocate, I could not over-argue the matter. Finally, among the most heartening moments, for me, were Dellinger’s pejorative uses of the word “libertarian” to describe our position. Everyone arguing for an individual right – any individual right – may be said to be taking a libertarian position. That perspective comes from trusting people. We trust the people of Washington, D.C., like those in half of all American households, would responsibly use firearms in lawful fashion. We believe that trust is reflected in the Second Amendment. We hope the Court will agree." Regards, Douglas

Here is a photo I found recently, which is only identified as "Russian Snipers practicing at night" - though the back stop material is not known (could be steel, could be frozen ground), notice the trajectory of the rounds going over the berm: Interesting pic I thought.

In order for the Court to reach a decision about whether the DC gun ban is or isn't constitutional, they need to perform some sort of analysis, i.e. a standard of review. They can't just write a decision that only says, "it is unconstitutional" and not say anymore, but have to lay the road map on how that decision was reached. Hi David! I respectfully disagree with you that the Court is required to state a standard of review. I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case? Those words, however, are not my words. Those are the words of Chief Justice Roberts quoted directly from the oral arguments last Tuesday. Here is the full quote: "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, "compelling interest," "significant interest," "narrowly tailored," none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these -- how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those? I'm not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?" David - there are many commentators who have echoed your position & who agree with you that the Court "must" dictate a standard. In fact, Judge Silberman's decision in Parker (the case which became Heller) stated a standard and for "our" side it was a grand-slam home run: strict scrutiny. It was that aspect of Parker that promted the S.G. to get involved and argue the way he did (even if Cheney later opposed the S.G.). So, will it be "No standard", or "standard?" If the latter, which one? I think the confusion comes from the order of questions actually presented. The first question must be: -Is the 2nd a collective right which belongs to the national gaurd and U.S. military? Right now, today, the majority of Circuit courts (11 of 13) have opinions on the books which state as law: "No individual right to own a gun exists. The right belongs to the military and not the individual." The Supreme Court, in finding an individual right, will overturn the law in 11 of 13 circuits - which is monumental. I think they will act as Roberts suggests in the quote above - and then call it a day. They can declare the D.C. code sections simply "unconstitutional" if they also say that the code would not survive any level of review. They need not reach the question of what level of review will apply in the future. But, that is only my prediction and as has been pointed out before, no one will know who is correct until the Court issues its decision in June or July. Regards, Douglas

So for the sake of all future passengers, does anyone know: -do the new "hardened cockpit doors" include a layer of kevlar? And finally, we find the one potential DOWN SIDE to being seated in 1st class.

Great - another pro-gun / national carry program in jeopardy.

Chills - thanks for letting us know about this bill. Your post pays respect to the forum rules about politics AND it lets us know about a factual matter without adding a political comment - nice job! It got me thinking about ways that we can maybe let people know about important developments that could affect them (especially as to competition) without crossing the forum boundries wisely set up by our host, Brian. I agree with him, BTW, that we should stay away from politics; this forum is about competition, not politics. I think our mods do a great job of keeping us on topic. As an example, I understand our newest addition, the Steel Challenge, has been threatened by California's proposed environmental restrictions on lead. Should we discuss these things? Or leave these types of topics for other forums? (mods - feel free to delete this post if its not appropriate or move to a separate topic - thanks again. D.).

Good question Flex! Put another way, (if I understand you) my prediction about the decision seems to be: "You have crossed the line, D.C., and therefore, your handgun ban is unconstitutional. BUT, we will not tell you where we draw the line." How is that possible you ask? By "draw the line" - I am referring to what "standard" or "standard of review" applies to gunlaws restricting an individual's 2nd Amendment rights. Our law is largely about "standards." So again, how can I believe the Court will not tell us what standard to apply? Here is the Q. (from page 5) that the Court voted on to ask in this case: "Whether the following [3] provisions [of the] D.C. Code . . . violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?” Notice that the question does not mention anything about standards. It only asks: "violate the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals ?" Put that way, the question seems to call only for a yes/no answer. No need to answer the question of what standard applies (ie - where is the line drawn?), because it was not asked. The Supreme Court has a tendency to make their decisions (rulings) as narrow as possible. We know that their written decision has to say more than just "yes/no" - but I believe they will keep it as narrow as possible beyond that. They make narrow rulings because their philosophies span a wide spectrum and a narrow answer is the only answer that a majority of them would ever agree on. In addition, the cases they agree to hear are supposed to be the toughest ones in law - meaning BOTH sides have good facts and arguments supporting their respective positions (I am not saying I agree with any part of D.C.'s position here - far from it). But if both sides have reasonable positions (i.e. "there is a grey area where reasonable minds can differ"), then it makes sense that the Court's answer would be as narrow as possible because in some small sense, both sides have some merit. A wide, extreme, or one-sided opinion would simply ignore the facts or ideas supporting the other side's argument. Better to leave the issue of "standard" open and see what D.C. comes up with next. The Court does not want to make D.C.'s laws for them; they only want to make sure D.C.'s laws do not conflict with the Constitution. Another reason (I believe) the decision will be narrow and NOT state what standard applies is: the Second Amenedment right of individuals seems to be viewed as a "newly recognized" right (its existed all along; they are just now recognizing it). Since this right is new, there are few past court cases (no "body of law") for the Supreme Court to point to in support of what standard they should apply. The last case to address this issue was Miller in 1939, and Kennedy called it: "deficient" (he is right; Miller is deficient). What the Court tends to do when it recognizes a right for the first time is: make a narrow ruling and let future litigation produce the facts that the Supreme Court needs to answer questions like: "what standard should apply?" In any event, what good would a win in Heller be without a standard of review? I am getting ahead of myself here, but at a minimum, I believe that Chicago and Morton Grove, Il, would have a very tough time defending their complete bans on handgun ownership, since their bans are essentially identical to D.C.'s handgun ban (and as the Justices pointed out "what is reasonable about a total ban on handguns?"). Regards, Douglas

Thanks chp5! My middle name is Carl, after 1/2 of my old Swedish American relatives (the other half were either named "Sven" or "Olie"!). At the time I registered on this forum, I think there was already some one using the forum name Carl, though I might have started using Carlos on another forum first. Intead of Carl, I started using my nickname from my high-school Spanish class: "Carlos" (which beats Sven or Olie in my book). Later, I added a signature line so that no one would think my screen name came from long range shooting legend Carlos Hathcock (though I wish I could shoot 1/2 as well as he could). On other forums I have just used my USPSA number, TY-44934. Thanks again, D.

I am truly honored, and I I can't thank the entire BE.com community enough for this fantastic recognition. This forum, and all the people who make it possible, have meant so much to me over the past few years, which is why I am at a loss for words right now other than: a heart-felt thanks to all!

I agree! Who exactly is predicting that the "individual right" interpretation will win? -the very people who OPPOSE an individual right to own a gun! Reminder: one of the best sources of factual information on this case comes from the law firm hired by D.C. to convince the Court that you & I (individuals) do not have a right to own a firearm of any type. That lawfirm's website is (again) www.scotusblog.com Here is a quote from that firm's analysis as to what happened in Court yesterday (Justices in BOLD): "... Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the deciding vote. There also remained a chance, it appeared, that Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the Court’s moderates, would be willing to support an individual right to have a gun — provided that a ruling left considerable room for government regulation of weapons, particularly in urban areas with high crime rates." I am counting 5-4, at a minimum, in favor of an individual right. If you have followed this thread all along, there were several predictions that we had 4 Justices who are likely to vote for an individual right (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) while the "swing vote" was thought to be Kennedy. Seems Kennedy tipped his hand yesterday and he's likely to vote our way. Our friends usually tell us what we want to hear. But, when even our opponents are telling us that we will win this case, it sounds to me like they are conceding defeat. It's obvious we will not know for certain until June or early July. No need to remind me not to "count chickens" (etc etc). But is there reason to be optimistic after yesterday? Obviously so. Again, I believe that following Robert's quote above, the Court will state that they do not need to state what level of scrutiny applies to gun control laws because the D.C. ban would not survive any level of Constitutional scrutiny. If so, the immediate laws in danger under the future Heller decision would be the Chicago city and Morton Grove handgun bans. Any further prediction will have to wait until we see what the Court's decision contains.

We are talking about Glocks here, aren't we?!!? What state are you in?

Thanks for the heads up! Will have to pick it up next month.