Carlos

Penn and Teller are GREAT! If you ever go on vacation to Las Vegas, you will certainly enjoy their entertaining magic show (Hint - its not just magic) and its well worth the time and money. As a statement of fact, with NO political implication here at all (ie I am NOT making any political statement, so please don't imply or reply): Penn and Teller are both honored fellows of the libertarian think-tank, the Cato.org Institute. By coincidence, Robert Levy, who sponsored the Supreme Court challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, is also a Cato fellow.

I was behind the wheel in a line of cars waiting to use the local car wash (I'd paid & had my ticket). Guy pulls up to our right in a truck. A big truck. He positions said truck like he wants me to let him cut the line. WTF? His time's worth more than mine? I don't think so. So I ignore him. He gets behind me and then - he whistles. I rolled down the window and he has the gaul to say: "Hey, I was next!" I told the guy: "No, you were not. I was waiting." Then I ignored the guy. Luckily, that was the end of it. But it spoiled the whole car-wash experience for me. People need the THINK before they open their mouth. What are people today thinking??!?

Exactly! (thanks - I should have been more clear). The written / transcribed argument from today's hearing is now available HERE AS A PDF FILE The following question from the Chief Justice (I believe) tells us they are not likely to find ANY standard of review applicable to this newly-defined individual right. Instead, they will let the standard of review develop over time through future litigation: "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?"

Sharp eye EERW! I am encouraged. I listened to the arguments by Cspan. A few thoughts for those who posted above and did not get a good feeling about our chances: 1) The Justices often play "devil's advocate" by arguing against what they might actually believe. Problem is: you can never tell when they are arguing for or against their own opinion. This fact is the reason why the predictions after hearing the oral arguments are often wrong. In the Kelo case, no one really expected the result after hearing the arguments. 2) Cases are rarely decided on the oral arguments. Rather, the briefs are what make or break a case. The Justices stated that the briefs in this case were of high quality - which is important considering the fact that I found Gura's oral advocacy deficient. There are more briefs amici on our side; which at least tells us that almost every possible angle has been covered in favor of an individual right and all relevant facts have been presented. David and Mark: incorporation was not meaningfully argued by the parties here. I don't think resolution of this case hinges on incorporation. Standard of review: Roberts asked: (paraphrase) "Why do we need to answer the question of whether this right, if it found to exist, is subject to strict scrutiny? Isn't that question outside the scope of the issue raised?" -I don't think the S.G. gave a satisfactory answer. I believe he responded with "It is possible that. . ." My impression was that the Justices did not buy it. Their tendency has been to craft narrowly-tailored decisions. If they do not need to establish a standard, they will not do so. So - prediction time: I expect the holding to be something like: "The Second Amendment is an individual right which is incorporated. The D.C. handgun ban violates the rights of citizens as to ownership of handguns in the home. We need not reach the issue of whether the right under the Second Amendment is subject to strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny because the D.C. ban would not withstand either standard of review." If we get such a ruling, this is a HUGE win for us! While some will argue: "well, not much will change down at the local gun shop for me and my friends so this opinions meaningless!" - I strongly disagree. Again, if you find yourself in one of the 11 out of 13 circuit courts TODAY and you try to tell the judge: "I have an individual right under the 2nd Amendment, you WILL LOSE and the judge can point to binding (mandatory) authority on the books right now which states: you have NO individual right to own a firearm under the 2nd. I am hopeful that we will prevail. We find out as late as early July - though an earlier decision is likely. Regards as always, Douglas

Agree - but I add the Lee Carbide crimp die - the Factory Crimp Die - and I use the Hornady Case Spray shown in Brian's video.

Hi David, While I do not disagree with your prediction (how could I?) I do disagree with your statement: "not much has changed" (if the S.Ct. finds an individual right to own firearms). Why? Currently, there is no individual right to own a firearm under our Constitution. Of the 13 Federal Courts of Appeals, (the ones who actually interpret laws) 11 of the 13 have determined that there is no individual right to own a firearm. One of the only two Courts who think you do have a right to own a firearm is the D.C. Circuit, where the reality is that most guns are effectively banned. Believe what you want about your right to own a gun; the fact is, that right does not exist. Our opinions are meaningless because its the Federal circuits who determine the law and gun prosecutions follow the law handed down from the Circuits. NOW you see why the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller (to be argued on Tuesday) is so important. Today, we own only the guns, but we have no right to them. In Heller, we stand to actually obtain the individual right to own our firearms. That right might be important as we WILL have new president in 2009. Regards, D.

38 Superman wrote (concerning his registered D.D. shotgun): "This shotgun wasn't banned or restricted by any act of congress. It was simply declared a DD by the Treasury Dept under the Clinton administration. If it can happen to the USAS it can happen to the Saiga." That is correct. There is NOTHING stopping this administration (or the NEXT administration) from turning all your shotguns into "Class III" weapons (like machineguns & silencers). In the case of the USAS-12, they were very kind to us: the waived the $200 transfer tax (one time only) and did not require the guns to be turned in for destruction. If they decide to add more firearms to the NFA Registry (i.e. - make them "Class III") they CAN do so on a whim and there is virtually NOTHING you will be able to do to stop them; your representatives in congress have no say whatsoever regarding Treasury Department (now DOJ) rulings of this type. On top of that, there is no individual right to own firearms in the Constitutuion currently. Of the 13 Federal Courts of Appeals, (the ones who actually interpret laws) 11 have found there is no individual right to own a gun, and one of two who think you do have a right is D.C., where most guns are banned. Believe what you want, your opinion is meaningless because its the Federal circuits who determine the law. NOW you see why the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller (to be argued on Tuesday) is so important. The decision is due out in June or July. Regards, CBR.

Well put! We can think of these "purists" as the Amish of the handgun owning world.

THERE IS HOPE! The Solicitor General is rumored to be considering amending his position when he actually faces the Justices during oral argument! Here is the article: March 13, 2008 The Administration's Gun Battle By Robert Novak WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Preparing to hear oral arguments Tuesday on the extent of gun rights guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a brief signed by Vice President Cheney opposing the Bush administration's stance. Even more remarkably, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President George W. Bush. The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order. But if Bush agrees with Cheney, why did the president not simply order Clement to revise his brief? The answers: disorganization and weakness in the eighth year of his presidency. Consequently, a Republican administration finds itself aligned against the most popular tenet of social conservatism: gun rights that enjoy much wider support than opposition to abortion or gay marriage. Promises in two presidential elections are abandoned, and Bush finds himself left of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. The 1976 District of Columbia statute prohibiting ownership of all functional firearms a year ago was called unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment in an opinion by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative who has served on the D.C. Circuit Court for 22 years. It was assumed Bush would fight Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty's appeal. The president and his senior staff were stunned to learn, on the day it was issued, that Clement's petition called on the high court to return the case to the appeals court. The solicitor general argued that Silberman's opinion supporting individual gun rights was so broad that it would endanger existing federal gun control laws such as the bar on owning machine guns. The president could have ordered a revised brief by Clement. But under congressional Democratic pressure to keep hands off the Justice Department, Bush did not act. Cheney did join 55 senators and 250 House members in signing a brief supporting the Silberman ruling. While this unprecedented vice presidential intervention was widely interpreted as a dramatic breakaway from the White House, longtime associates could not believe Cheney would defy the president. In fact, he did not. Bush approved what Cheney did in his constitutional legislative branch role as president of the Senate. That has not lessened puzzlement over Clement, a 41-year-old conservative Washington lawyer who clerked for Silberman and later for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Clement has tried to explain his course to the White House by claiming he feared Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court's current swing vote, would join a liberal majority on gun rights if forced to rule on Silberman's opinion. The more plausible explanation for Clement's stance is that he could not resist opposition to individual gun rights by career lawyers in the Justice Department's Criminal Division (who clashed with the Office of Legal Counsel in a heated internal struggle). Newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a neophyte at Justice, was unaware of the conflict and learned about Clement's position only after it had been locked in. A majority of both houses in the Democratic-controlled Congress are on record against the District of Columbia's gun prohibition. So are 31 states, with only five (New York, Massachusetts Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii) in support. Sen. Obama has weighed in against the D.C. law, asserting that the Constitution confers individual rights to bear arms -- not just collective authority to form militias. This popular support for gun rights is not reflected by an advantage in Tuesday's oral arguments. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, an old hand at arguing before the Supreme Court, will make the case for the gun prohibition. Opposing counsel Alan Gura, making his first high court appearance, does not have the confidence of gun-owner advocates (who tried to replace him with former Solicitor General Ted Olson). The cause needs help from Clement in his 15 minute oral argument, but not if he reiterates his written brief. The word was passed in government circles this week that Clement would amend his position when he actually faces the justices -- an odd ending to bizarre behavior by the Justice Department. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...gun_battle.html "" end quote

Friend bought 200 rounds of surplus ammo real cheap at a gunshow. Turned out he bought 7.65 Argentine Mauser ammo thinking it was for his Mosin. So he went out and bought an Argentine Mauser in order to use the ammo he bought - problem solved.

I used to shoot a lot of GSSF (Glock only match) and my 17 cut me every time; I also have big mits. Back when Sevigny came to GSSF events, he showed us his Limited Glock and a Open/steel glock he once had - he pointed out that he had slightly beveled the lower edge of the cocking serations on those guns so they would not cut him (though not on his Production Glock of course). But stick with the Glock; if Dave can work around the issue, I am sure you will also find a way.

The gun pictured is Ser. #1 - a prototype built by MagPul. While Magpul is a growing company, they cannot match Bushmaster's capacity to make barrels, bolts, carriers and trigger parts in house. It was a wise move to involve Bushmaster, IMHO. The version that Bushmaster showed at SHOT had the charging handle re-positioned over the barrel - similar to a G3; HK91/93; CETME, etc. and it should also be ambidextrous. The quick-change barrel feature will probably be retained, and MagPul had plans to offer a service where any AR-15 barrel you own could be slightly modified to work with the Masada & its piston driven system; I hope that Bushmaster keeps that feature when the gun goes into production. Look close at the magazine in the picture: obviously that is Robb (or he borrowed the gun from Robb - hmmm, wonder which?).

Tell us something we don't know. Update: Last shot fired by D.C.; they have filed their response brief (see link). Court rules do not permit a response. This is it folks! Nothing surprising in D.C.'s brief. They had the nerve to cite to a March 4, 2008, editorial by Lawrence Tribe, a noted liberal law professor who reluctantly admits that the 2nd is an individual right, but who still urges the Justices to allow all manner of restrictions on gun ownership. I hope the Court resents D.C.'s attempt to tell them to follow a newspaper op-ed in interpreting the Constitution, even if the op-ed was authored by Lawrence Tribe. LINK TO SCOTUSBLOG I spoke with another be.com lawyer (as opposed to a range lawyer) about our side's prospects. The fact that the solicitor general took the position he did, coupled with the relatively minor fact that he was granted 15 minutes to argue (commonplace, but possibly meaningful) left us far less optimistic that the Circuit Court's decision would be affirmed as it stands (strict scrutiny). My prediction: expect a remand. Strict scrutiny is likely off the table. Nevertheless, a S.Ct, declaration that the 2nd is an individual right is still a major win, considering that 11 of 13 Circuits now state individuals have NO right to own a firearm of any type. Interesting angle: the briefs make abundantly clear that whatever the central purpose of the 2nd is determined to be, it will NOT be "sporting" use. How so? The "militia" referred to in the 2nd is either 1) a state militia, like the national gaurd, which has nothing to do with hunting, or 2) the militia refers to individual citizens who own firearms, but by using the term "militia", the founding fathers would have been referring to certain types of arms, such as those types of arms suitable for "security" as mentioned in the 2nd. These types of civilian-owned "militia arms" might also have had other uses including: second: self-defense and a very distant third: hunting. So, if individuals have any right to own and bear firearms, the FIRST arms we get to keep are military-style guns. Thus, could such a decision gut government restrictions that are based on "sporting" purposes? Maybe. Like what? -import regs. Guns, including some Glocks, are banned from import because they are not "sporting" enough for the government. That might be unconstitutional. -Aspects of NFA: some guns are heavily restricted because they are not "sporting" enough - like Alex Wakal's USAS-12 shotgun (wrongly ID's in this month's Front Sight), which the gov determined is a "destructive device" even though its as suitable as a Saiga for our sport. It might just turn out that the government could restrict or ban hunting guns and olympic target guns, while protecting your right to own ARs and AKs. We should know by June.

News update from Fri. Feb. 1: "VIENNA, Austria - Shrugging off calls to pump more oil, OPEC ministers said Friday that output levels will not be increased out of fear that a softening global economy will translate into weakened demand." LINK It costs us over $30 to fill the tank now & we only get about 30 MPG (Toyota Matrix). This sucks! Hi Jim! Instead of a new car, why not sell the gas guzzler you already own and use the money for fuel instead? Here is how - Jim & everyone, fuel prices are not going down and its time for us to do something that is within our control; have you all considered these two options for car-share companies in light of gas prices?: FLEXCAR website ZIPCAR website

40 rounder magazines in 7.62x39mm for an AK are cheap and very reliable - so long as they are not US-made. A 40 will let you avoid a reload most of the time because stage designers are usually stuck in the mind-set of building 32 round stages to force most AR shooters to either do a reload or use a Beta.

Greeting 98sr20ve! I edited part of your Q: The lead 147s will give you a low recoil, accurate load - BUT, Titegroup is not the powder you want becuase its know to burn very hot which produces LOTS of smoke. What powder should you use for low recoil 147s? A: something FAST burning, but compatible with lead. What are your choices? -Lyman's manual actually publishes a LEAD only load with straight Clays. Load LONG -1.150" -N320 will be safe at minor, and its even possible to use the faster still V V N310 (the ultimate gamer load) though you should load LONG (1.150") if you choose N310 and also use a Lee "U" die from EGW. V V is expensive and hard to find though. -My favorite these days is Solo 1000 and its inexpensive and sold at most Trap & Skeet clubs. -One known performer with heavy lead bullets in .355-.357" dia. is Win 231/Hodgdon HP-38. Kinda dirty, but it works -While I find the stuff dirty, even the old stand-by Bullseye will work. Don't worry about "case filling" ; just buy the Dillon powder check die system. Regards, C.

Hey Rob - that is excellent! I agree in the sense that its important to try even if your club's bod seems skeptical; you never know until you try. Thanks Ted! I had always suspected that there was a source for some of the really dumb range rules I kept running into all over the US like: - No more than 1 shot per second! - No more than 5 rounds loaded in any magazine! - No human silhouette or torso-shaped targets! (like we use in USPSA and IDPA). - No holsters! Suspected the NRA was behind it and I tried searching all over their website for "model range rules" but could never find it. Two problems with those rules are: 1) they rule out our sport or practicing for our sport and 2) reduces the range to effectively: - a sight-in only range. That kind of range will quickly bore the crap out of gun owners. They will then stop shooting. Then we all lose. NRA needs reform IMHO.

Sorry to hear it did not go better. As a group, I have found that the members of gun club's boards of directors tend to be rather set in their ways and not very open minded when any change is suggested.

I now recall shooting Hirtenberger L7A1 out of mine - it is factory 9Major with a 124. Also recall that if pressures get too high, blow back guns will sometimes show blown out primers - as in the case is ejected with the spent primer missing completely.

Thanks Larry and again, congratulations! You have answered my question completely (see below). I for one, am satisfied that this program is off to a great start & that everything that can be done to move these shoots in the right direction, will be done. I agree that this is not the time for anyone to get worked up over the current format. Its the future that matters here. Guys, I've known Larry for years and to the extent it matters, he is one of "us" - meaning he volunteered to RUN the Juniors program for all of USPSA for years and he understands where we should be headed for the future. On top of that - the outstanding Summer Blast is completely HIS doing and its one of the best large shoots around as many of you know. His dedication to our sport is beyond criticism in my book. He's earned my trust and I think he deserves your trust as well; let's let him work at this for a few years and then see where it goes. Anyway, here are parts of what he has already stated: Understand that I am coming into this with rules, content and program already set in place. This had to be done in order to hire someone into the position. For the record all three people involved with the program from here on out all shoot USPSA, IDPA, PPC, 3 gun and anything else you can toss a bullet toward a target. . . . I understand your frustration however we must start somewhere. . . . Now what can I change, not much for this year as we have 4 matches already planned. For 2009, that is a different story. . . . I hope that we can open the matches up so LE and civilian can shoot side by side. . . Everyone please keep in mind this program is less than 3 months old and the sky is the limit. . . . Great things are coming I promise you. I started the Summer Blast 8 years ago with 126 shooters, it has now grown to the largest Level III Tournament on the east coast with 320 registered already and the match is 5 months away. Thanks again Larry and please let us know how we can help out. Regards, D.

Read the same here in D.C. area - all they need to due is push the EPA into signing off on the deal. Claim is it won't hurt our engines (much). Guess they forgot all those folks who are issued "vintage/historic" license plates. Auto industry opposes the idea.

Good call. Make sure the new standards are not retroactive so it won't cost money-strapped clubs a dime unless they voluntarily choose to buy new steel in the future. Our former section coordinator was hit with a jacket fragment so hard that it penetrated his thumb-nail a few years back. Untill all steel is upgraded to the yet-to-be-determined standard and made forward-falling, maybe each club should use the down time during the winter months to re-condition their steel by grinding away the craters which cause fragments to come back at the shooter.

Dunno about M&Ps (mine is still on order). BUT - years ago I tried to force the upper from my brother's S&W Smegma (or was it Stigma?) onto my Glock frame; rails started to fit - rest of upper did not. It was a no-go.

Don't recall if it was major, but I loaded up 115 Montana JHPs over N350 and the charge was .2 grn over the max listed in V V 's current manual for 115 jacketed. I used 1x fired Hirtenberger brass. Here are the issues though: -action on my Colt 9mm is straight blow-back. Thus, there is NOTHING holding the case in the chamber other than the mass of the bolt and the return spring. That type of action is a far cry from any locked breach action like a 1911 or a CZ; thus, please approach major with caution and check brass for bulging. I have seen bulging occur on other blow backs like the Uzi we used to rent before our range/store burned down. -you might check to make sure you have enough mass behind that hot round: the Colt 9mm in factory trim uses a much heavier buffer than the standard carbines; you can buy one that is heavier still: the "H" buffer. More mass and strong brass should keep you out of trouble.

Loaded sight pictures are not prohibited by the rules. See above "not applicable." Drives me nuts as to the number of times I've heard ROs scold shooters by incorrectly telling them "You can't do that. Its in the rules." As for what we should not do? Sure, there is no need for a loaded sight picture. But worse than that, I also dislike those who take up everyone's time with multiple sight pictures/dry fire or other screwing around after LAMR. It is frankly: rude. Load and make ready quickly, please. It is all our time you are wasting up there. Regards, C.