Snowflakes in Hell

Marko shares the five most embarrassing albums on his iPod.  Let’s see here, and go through that which I am not proud.  Not much really, but let’s go ahead anyway:

1. Not one, but two Meatloaf albums.
2. Duran Duran’s Greatest Hits.
3. At least one Elton John album.
4. Two operas by Gilbert and Sullivan (H.M.S. Pinafore and the Pirates of Penzance, and I know the lyrics to just about all the songs)
5. I have a Hanson album.  But it’s not the Hanson you’re probably thinking.

UPDATE: Tam and I seem to share at least one of our top five.

Thanks to Instapundit for this great article by P.J. O’Rourke:

Forty years ago the pimply kid down the block, using $3,500 in saved-up soda-jerking money, procured might and main beyond the wildest dreams of Genghis Khan, whose hordes went forth to pillage mounted upon less oomph than is in a modern leaf blower.

It is an excellent story on American’s relationship with the automobile, which is now turning into the worst story of America’s relationship with its dysfunctional government.

Gun Pundit finds a case where cooperating didn’t work out too well.

There were some real shocking yes votes on the Coburn National Park carry amendment, highlighted in this CQ Politics article:

At least 11 House Democrats (not including freshmen) who have typically sided with gun-control advocates on past votes this time around favored allowing state and local gun laws to take precedence over federal law in national parks.

Those 11 were Reps. Adam Smith of Washington, Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Gregory W. Meeks of New York, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Hank Johnson of Georgia, Melissa Bean of Illinois, Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

“It was a mistake,” said DeGette’s deputy chief of staff, Kristofer Eisenla.

Meeks said he sided with the NRA “by accident.”

Several of them are expressing remorse over the vote, but I have to wonder, are things at Brady HQ so dour these days they don’t even have the energy to get someone up to The Hill and get their ducks lined up?   Granted, the votes here wouldn’t have made a difference, but having traditional allies fall out of line doesn’t exactly make your organization look good.  Just look at how quickly NRA responded to Bredesen.  If you’re an advocacy group, you can’t have your folks wandering off the reservation, even accidentally, especially accidentally.  I would have imagined this is something even a phone call to their office should have been able to fix.

Cheer up Brady Campaign.  Are things really that bad?   Someday you might have an overwhelmingly Democratic congress, and President in the Oval Office from a gun unfriendly urban stronghold.   Oh wait…

Apparently Facebook worked to get the Republican Party on board with using their site for their 2008 election efforts, and there was no interest.

Jennifer has a very good post on judicial empathy, using as her example the case in Oklahoma where a pharmacist is charged with first degree murder for finishing off a kid who tried to rob his store, as he apparently laid bleeding and unconscious on the ground.  I am not an advocate of there being no empathy in law.  It’s an important component for having a justice system, rather than just having a legal system.

But in our system of law, judges need to stand as impartial arbiters of the law.  The empathy should not come from the judge, it should come from the prosecutor, in his decision as to whether or not to bring charges, and it should come from a jury, in their duty to stand in judgment as peers of the defendant.

It was John Jay, the first Cheif Justice of the United States who said, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”  I would also say not just the law, but also to judge it’s particular application.  Jennifer makes a good point about empathy.  Put either of us on that jury, and I don’t think we’d convict.  By the letter of the law, the man would appear to be guilty of murder, but justice would not be served by him being separated from his family, and sent to prison.   He did not ask to have his store robbed, and his life threatened.  He was not the person that created the lethal circumstances.  I’ll be surprised if there’s a jury in Oklahoma that will convinct him of these charges.

Dave Kopel has an excellent tounge-in-cheek article on this topic.

This is the June edition of Mr. Completely’s E-Postal Matches. Many thanks to Manfred for hosting last e-postal.

My recent play with flight simulators got me in the mood for an aviation themed match this month.  The flying ace was any fighter pilot who managed to down five planes over the course of his fighting career.  World War I and World War II saw a lot of aces, but in recent years, with the decline of air-to-air combat, we haven’t heard much about flying aces.  Our e-postal match this month puts you in the cockpit, and try to take down some planes.

The target for this month’s match is here (click to download):

(Click here to download)

Many thanks to Bitter for creating the target for me on short notice. Note that this target needs to be printed in landscape. If you try to fit it in portrait mode, it’ll be impossibly difficult.

Rules

Place the target at 10 yards or 25 feet, whichever is available at your range.  Your goal is to hit enemy planes and dirigibles around you without shooting your own plane, and see if you can become a flying ace.  Fifteen planes means you could be an ace three times over! The large plane in the center is your plane, the smaller ones around it are enemy aircraft.  There are fifteen planes on the sheet, and you have 25 shots total for the match, so you can try to hit a plane more than once, but you may not fire more than twenty-five rounds in the match.  This is a test of accuracy.

Scoring in this match is a bit unusual, because your goal is to become a flying ace without getting shot down.  Each enemy plane hit counts as a single point.  If you get five planes, you get an ace bonus, which is to add five points to your total score.  If you get ten planes, you get two ace bonus points, and if you get all fifteen three ace bonus points!

But here’s the catch.  If you shoot your own plane, you can lose bonus points.  Any shot on the wing, guy wires, or tail, and you lose one ace bonus.  Any shot landing on the round fuselage part, the landing gear, or the propeller, and you lose all your ace bonus points.  This means if you shot all fifteen planes, but hit the propeller, you scored 15 points.  If you shot all fifteen planes, but shot the wing, you lose one ace bonus point for a score of 25 points.  If you shot all fifteen planes, but shot the wing twice, you lose two ace bonus points for a total of 20 points.  Now, if you shot 5 planes, but shot the fuselage, you still have 5 points.  Hitting your own plane only causes loss of the ace bonus points.  Enemy planes with holes always count for one point.  Maximum score is 30 points.  Standard scoring rules apply, meaning anything that touches part of the target counts as a hit.

Shooting position for all classes is offhand standing, unsupported, one or two hands allowed.

CLASSES:

CLASS ONE: Rimfire – Iron Sight. Any rimfire handgun with no more than a 12″ barrel. Optical sights such as red dots, lasers, or scopes are not allowed.

CLASS TWO: Rimfire – Optic Sight. Any rimfire handgun with no more than a 12″ barrel. Red dots sights, lasers, or scopes can be used.

CLASS THREE: Centerfire – Iron Sight. Any centerfire handgun with no more than a 12″ barrel. Optical sights such as red dots, lasers, or scopes are not allowed.

CLASS FOUR: Centerfire – Optic Sight. Any centerfire handgun with no more than a 12″ barrel. Red dots sights, lasers, or scopes can be used.

I’ll also score anyone who wants to enter with an air pistol, but e-mail me if you want to do this category.  I will be happy to shoot it with someone, so we at least have two entries.

MULTIPLE ENTRIES: One entry will be taken per gun per class, though you may shoot the match as many times as you like, and submit your highest entry. You can make multiple entries in a single class as long as you use a different gun. You can use the same gun in two classes if you add or subtract optics.

Don’t worry if your score is low. This match is meant to be difficult, and will be especially difficult for centerfire pistol shooters. There’s no embarrassment in scoring low, only in not submitting an entry!

Entries should be mailed to snowflakesinhell at gmail dot com by midnight on the 29th of June, which is a Monday. Results will be posted soon after.

One of the provisions of the new German gun laws, passed in response to the mass shooting at a school:

Under the new law, the government plans to increase to 18 from 14 the minimum age at which people can use large-caliber weapons at shooting clubs.

Did the previous killer go berzerk at a shooting club?   What possible relationship does what caliber a kid uses under supervised conditions of a gun club have to do with kids who steal guns from their parents and go on a shooting spree?

This looks like a solution in search of a problem.

The Christian Science Monitor looks at why Democrats are retreating from the gun issue, in a very detailed article that talks to a lot of people on all sides.  It really comes down to the Democrats having made great strides running people who can win in their districts, and in many cases that means you have to be in favor of the Second Amendment.

BTW, the reporter here is the same one that did the article on gun blogs at the NRA Annual Meeting.   I appreciate that’s he’s continuing to offer fair treatment for the subject, and get views from many different sources.

From Chris Cox on Kirsten Gillibrand:

“She took law-abiding gun owners in upstate New York for a ride and tossed them into the Hudson on her way into Manhattan.”

I guess as a politician, Senator Gillibrand’s positions are entirely negotiable if the reward is great enough.  There’s another profession that’s true about too.

The GOP is pissed the NRA isn’t jumping in head first battling, taking the position:

But a spokesman for the organization said it’s staying on the sidelines for now.

“Right now we have a lot of concerns and questions and we hope to have those addressed during the confirmation hearing and throughout the process,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. “As far as our actions, we reserve the right to do anything based on what we find out.

“All options are on the table,” he added. “As we speak today, we’re waiting for the confirmation process. A research team is looking into her record on our issue.”

No doubt they are also going to be taking a close look at the possible alternatives that would come behind Sotomayor if she is rejected by the Senate.  Jim Shepherd thinks she ought to be fought:

Fresh off the win for concealed carry in federal parks, it seems the pro-gun groups are content to take the short-term victory, and let what looks like a losing battle pass without any pushback whatsoever on Judge Sotomayor. This is despite the fact that she has consistently been anti-gun in her decisions. Even in a decidedly thin body of work, her position on firearms has been clear – she’s again’ em for “average folks”

I am not sure Sotomayor is the worst we could get.  She is a political choice, meaning she’s intended to please constituencies in the Democratic Party.  From the point of view of left-wing legal theory, there are greater legal minds Obama could have picked for the seat, even if it was his intention to nominate a woman.  There’s no doubt in my mind that Sotomayor will be a reliable leftist vote on the court, but I don’t think she’ll be an intellectual leader, in the way Justice Stevens has been for example.

My worry in scuttling Sotomayor is what’s behind her, waiting in the wings if she’s not confirmed.  Given that, I think caution is prudent.  The best we could hope to get out of this administration is that Obama digs up someone who hasn’t said much or anything about the Second Amendment, and they say the right things during the confirmation process.   That, however, is no guarantee they’ll be a pro-gun vote on The Court.  In the philosophy of the left-wing legal establishment, there is no room for an individual right to bear arms.  That cuts to the heart their very collectivist core.  For that reason, I don’t believe we will get a pro-gun Justice out of President Obama, no matter what we do.

The key to saving the Heller majority is ensuring that Barack Obama is a one term president, and I don’t care if that means I have to vote and volunteer for Mitt “The Sh*t” Romney.  When the greater evil is an unashamed socialist, any lesser one will do.

UPDATE: See this article by Patrick Ruffini.  I think he makes a good case for fighting her nomination, but correctly points out:

Supreme Court fights are inherently elite D.C. fights. Don’t expect voters, even Latino voters, to passionately engage. Most people correctly perceive the Court as being far removed and even irrelevant to their daily life and whether they will keep their job — and that’s as it should be. Has there ever been a mass movement for or against a Court nominee, even a Thurgood Marshall, a Sandra Day O’Connor, or a Clarence Thomas?

I think that’s actually a significant problem for the pro-gun movement, with these kinds of nomination fights.  Getting the grass roots fired up (and no, a handful of people on the Internet does not constitute the grass roots.  People who read blogs, forums, etc, actually tend to be more in the “elite” crowd discussed here.) is a particular problem.  Also keep in mind that Ruffini is speaking from a GOP point of view, and I’m speaking as a single issue activist that has to work with Democrats to survive in this Congress.  I agree with Ruffini that the GOP, and gun rights folks, can’t just roll over on Sotomayor’s record, but at the end of the day, there’s other considerations as to whether arms get twisted on the eventual vote.

Kevin Baker points out that the meme is back!  I guess they will try all the old tricks in the hopes that something works.  I think the gig is up though, at least for the time being.

First Lamar Alexander wanders off and votes against National Park carry, and now Phil Bredesen vetoes the restaurant carry bill.  NRA has a statement on it here.  Having been in Arizona, which also prohibits carry in any establishment that serves alcohol, it’s a major inconvenience, especially if you don’t have a car.

When we were in Phoenix, we were going to find some lunch with some of the Arizona bloggers, and found a nice place, then realized they had a liquor license.  Even though none of us had any intention of drinking, we had to go leave firearms in cars and hotel rooms to avoid running afoul of the law.   Critics of restaurant carry, including Bresdesen, express concern about how the law would be enforced.  But wouldn’t that be a concern for concealed carry in general?  The whole thing is based on the honor system, which is why it’s stilly to even require licenses in the first place.  Only those with honor will participate.

This is no time for a war.  All I can say is, it’s lucky for Korea they have a competent military, because I wouldn’t want to depend on 1600 Pennsylvania to change the cat litter, let alone deal with the North Koreans.  Also, if Japan isn’t starting a crash program to develop nuclear weapons, they really should be.

SayUncle has the story.  No, in New Jersey there is no dramatic reenactment or entertainment exception, though I understand that’s been talked about.  New Jersey laws on guns (including air guns) is relatively simple: guns are illegal in New Jersey.  You can only own them and possess them under exceptions to the law.  One of those exceptions is a shooting range, and going directly too and from.  A theater is Atlantic City is not a shooting range, so it’s outside of that exception.  The only way to legally possess a .357 revolver in a theater in Atlantic City is to get a New Jersey License to Carry Firearms, which are not really issued to anyone who’s not well connected, and even the well connected can have a rough time.

Incidentally, New Jersey law can create problems for reenactors, because of the lack of exception for entertainment. Even a flintlock pistol in New Jersey is regulated in the same manner as a Glock.  Muzzleloaders are regulated in a lesser manner than modern rifles and shotguns, but New Jersey’s antique cannon laws alone are several pages.  The laws, taken as a whole, are so complicated even most lawyers don’t understand them, let alone police.  The complexity of it is part of the reason I won’t compete there, even though there are ranges that are still very active, and run good matches.

Here’s an interview I did with Matt of Kel-Tec on their new RFB product.  My questions are in bold italic, and his answers are standard text.  There seems to be a lot of interest in their RFB product, which is a bullpup .308 with a novel forward ejection system.  Here’s Matt:

The .308 market is certainly less crowded than the .223 market, but Kel-Tec is still competing with some old standbys like the M1A, FAL, HK91, and the AR-10.  How do you think the Kel-Tec RFB stacks up to these rifles?

The RFB is shorter, lighter, easier to produce, has a better trigger, and is more adaptable to modern accessories like optics and Picatinny devices. Those other designs could be considered Generation II Semi-Auto designs, the RFB is Generation III.

What made you decide to go with a Bullpup design?

All of these designs are reliable, but they are also over 40 inches long, and that includes some of the carbines. The only version of the RFB that will be that long will be the 32″ model which has only been produced as a prototype thus far. The 18″ model that is being produced now is only 26″ long, 27″ with the A2 style flash hider. That’s shorter than an M4 Carbine with the stock collapsed and comparable to an MP5 A2. That’s why we went with a Bullpup.

Most designers steer away from Bullpup designs because they blow gas back into the shooters face from the ejection port, but this is negated by our forward ejection system. There is also a superstition that if there is a catastrophic failure that the shooter is more likely to be seriously injured or killed if their face is closer to the action, but with the RFB, there are two layers of steel between the receiver and the shooter, so if there was a over pressure cartridge that had a case head separation, the pressure would travel downward through the magazine well, which is the path of least resistance. The shooter would likely be able to drive themselves to the hospital if they were injured at all.

Are you planning to release the RFB in other calibers, like .223 Remington?

Seeing as the intermediate caliber market is almost completely saturated and has more than a couple Bullpup designs, we feel it would be better to focus on the full powered cartridge market first. The first RFBs are of course in 7.62 NATO, but future variants will be chambered in the offshoots of the .308 cartridge case, such as the .260 Remington, 7mm-08, .243 Winchester, .22-250, and so forth. If it has the same sized rim and feeds from a metric FAL magazine, it may be chambered in the RFB. Obviously, we will choose which cartridges we offer based on demand, but since the barrel on the RFB can be easily changed with our Armorer’s kit, we may offer these calibers in accessory barrels even if we never build them in rifles.

What kind of accuracy can you expect from an RFB?

The RFB is an exceptionally accurate design due to its excellent trigger and wonderfully short lock time. I’ve shot Sub MOA with every RFB variant, including the 18″ model. The biggest detriment to accuracy is ammunition quality. American made bulk ammo will usually give you between 1.5-4″ groups depending on the brand, with copper jackets giving better results than steel jackets. I’ve fired some Portuguese, Indian, and Mexican Surplus 7.62 Ammo that gave horrible accuracy. Generally, if you get over 2″ with an RFB using match ammo, it probably isn’t the rifle.

Lock time is the time in between when the sear releases the hammer or striker in a firearm and the firing pin contacts the primer. Lock time is one of the most important aspects to accuracy in a rifle. It’s difficult to test, so most manufacturers don’t bother too, since few people know what it is.

Most semi autos use a hammer that has enough mass to ignite the most stubborn of military primers reliably, this is their only mission. The heavy, slow, and often long travel of the hammer after sear release allows the rifle to move a nearly imperceptible amount in the shooters hands, causing an ever more dramatically increasing error the further out the target is. Bolt Actions have inherently less mass and a shorter travel between the end of the striker and the primer, resulting in a naturally short lock time, usually around 3 Milliseconds for modern actions. This is why bolt actions are preferred for use in Competition rifles. This is also why open bolt GPMGs are not used as Sniper Rifles.

The RFB has a lock time of about 4.5 Milliseconds, which is better than many WWII bolt actions and nearly every factory semi-auto ever built. The AR-15 is considered very accurate for a semi-auto, and it has an average lock time of about 9.5 Milliseconds.

The trigger is usually the Achilles heel on Bullpup designs.  I understand you’ve made the trigger on the RFB considerably better than other Bullpup rifles.  Can you speak to that?

Most Bullpups are simply conventional rifles with their trigger groups put in the wrong place. Witness various Kalashnikov Bullpup conversions. The RFB was designed from the ground up to be a Bullpup, and it has never been anything else. The difference between the RFB and most Bullpups is the lack of linkages between the trigger and the sear trip. The trigger is squeezed, and it moves the sear trip directly, as on a conventional rifle. The sear trip actuates the sear which releases a spring loaded linkage which is attached to the hammer, similar to a Browning High Power. The springs which are attached to the linkage pull the hammer which moves up to strike the firing pin.

The RFB also has a very wide trigger, which increases the surface area on the shooter’s finger and gives the sensation of having a lighter pull than it does. The 18″ models have a trigger that is calibrated to be between 4.5-7.5 pounds for legal reasons. Very early production rifles had triggers that were slightly above that specification, but nobody has complained yet. The standard RFB comes with optimized components that are non-adjustable, but these can be replaced with adjustable components if the customer desires. The RFB was designed to include mechanisms to adjust the take up, over travel, and trigger spring pressure. The sear spring can also be adjusted, but most shooters will not be able to detect a difference in this adjustment. Everyone who’s handled the RFB has commented on how good the trigger is, and we feel that most people won’t feel the need to install the adjustable components, so those will be offered on later models as an option. This will help ease production so that as many rifles can get built as possible.

One concern I’ve heard from folks is the reliability of the ejection system, with fears that could get jammed up, and malfunction.  How reliable have you found it to be in testing?

The RFB is essentially the first semi-auto rifle to have a controlled round extraction system. It uses two extractors to pull the fired case out of the chamber by way of the carrier and gas system. It has proven to be very reliable in testing. Once the fired cases are in the ejection chute, they have no where to go except forward. They have no surface to stick on which could cause enough friction to jam the action, no matter how much dirt got into the ejection chute area. Everything is moved forward by the reward inertia of the weapon firing, which gives a kind of natural ejection force to the cases in the chute. Tubular magazines don’t jam unless they get dented, and the ejection chute on the RFB is inside of the rifle, making it nearly impossible to damage while carrying or shooting the rifle. The RFB is quite possibly the only rifle ever built that will never stove pipe.

We’re glad to see Dave Hardy is out of surgery, and seemingly in good spirits.  Hopefully he will be on to a speedy recovery.

Sensibly Progressive takes a detailed look at a New York Times article on the new National Park carry law that actually manages to be fairly balanced.

Investors Business Daily is looking at Ruger, who, like other gun manufacturers, are doing very well.  But they are reluctant to expand their production capacity in anticipation of the buying frenzy coming to an end at some point.

Oh my!  I just realized I need to get the E-Postal match for June up.  I am hosting, but I thought I had one last Monday in May, but June 1st starts on Monday.  I’ll get that up as soon as I can.

It’s looking pretty likely Joe Sestak will challenge Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.  I know NRA doesn’t typically get involved in primary fights, but if Sestak remains the only challenger, this is one to get involved in.  The general election would present a bit of a dilemma for me, but I have no problem working for Specter to help defeat Sestak.  In fact, I wish we could get Sestak out of Congress entirely.

Eugene Volokh discusses a case where Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was hushed by campus officials of Allegheny County Community College (the county in Pennsylvania which contains Pittsburgh), which is dubiously constitutional.

UPDATE: SayUncle also has it.

Wyatt encounters a person who wants to drop charges because they feel sorry for the criminal.  These are the same people to vote for judges who turn criminals back out on the streets to pillage.  These are also the same people are are OK with cutting cops on the street first, rather than last.  I expect Philadelphia will follow Toledo in this regard.