From the Heartland

This is my soap box, on these pages I publish my opinions on firearms and any other subject I feel like writing about.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Thor's Hammer (the new name for my Mossberg SSI One)

With the 12 gauge rifle barrel on it anyway!

Yea I know I haven't been around much, but hey I been out hunting. Not just deer either, but that is the subject of this post.

For those of you that read this Blog with any regularity you know I have been touting the Mossberg SSI One.

To Re-cap;

It is a singleshot firearm with interchangable barrels that can be had in 223 & 22-250 heavy barrel configuration and in 223, 22-250, 243, 270, 308, and 30-06 sporter configuration (tapered). There are two 12 gauge barrels available; one with rifling and one designed specifically for Turkey hunting.

I own two of these fine firearms in 30-06 and have the 12 gauge rifled barrel that I use on one of them. I was fortunate to enough to take the 12 gauge rifled barrel on a recent deer hunt and it exceeded my expectations. This firearm will shoot 1 1/2 inch or less groups at 100 yards if I do my part.

Shotguns only

One of the areas I hunt is limited to shotguns and muzzle loaders only. This is not a problem because shots in that area rarely exceed 80 yards anyway. We spent two days hunting and I lucked out about a half hour before the end of legal shooting light on the last day of the regular firearms season.

Having an antlerless only permit I was set up in a cedar tree about 50 yards downwind from a well travelled deer trail. I heard a deer bounding through some pretty thick brush before it came into a small opening. As it entered the opening I shoulder the Mossberg and gave a bleat to stop the deer. When it came to a halt I settled the cross hairs on the right shouldered and fired.

The deer was about forty yards away and never took another step. I approached the downed deer and after ensuring that it had expired I tagged it and began a cursory examination of the wound the slug caused.

I won't get into the gory details of that or the ensuing field dressing autopsy, but it is suffice to say that the 3 inch Remington Copper Solid 12 gauge saboted slug I was using is one of the most devastating rounds I have used in all of my years hunting deer. The slug exited the left side and was not recovered.

I had hoped that this firearm and ammunition would be a good combination for deer and I am entirely satisfied that my hunch was right. I am not exagerating when I say that deer dropped like "a pole axed steer" or that he had been "struck with Thor's Hammer".


The sad news is that Mossberg has discontinued this firearm. There are plenty of "new-in-the-box" and used guns available along with all of the barrels. The Gun Auctions seem to run hot and cold with them. If you are looking for an affordable single shot firearm that has interchangable barrels take a long hard look at the Mossberg SSI One.

I intend to find a few more barrels for the ones I have, and in a recent conversation with the folks at Mossberg, they still work on them if one needs service and they intend to for quite some time.

As a side note:

I have a Bushnell Sportsman 1.5 - 4.5 power shotgun scope mounted on the 12 gauge barrel and I have some issues with it. On the shooting range the optics appeared crisp, clear and it holds a very good zero.

Using this scope in the field however I found that objects, trees, brush and game sort of blended into together making it hard to get on the target well. On the first day in the field I had the opportunity to take a shot at two different deer, but I just could not find them in the scope.

I have not experienced this phenomenon with any other scope I have ever used and Bushnell had no answers over the phone either, except that I send it back to them for testing. I will consider this, and possibly give it some more field testing before looking for another scope.

Term Limits; Lounge Chair for Apathy

The Citizens of Nebraska have voted for term limits at General Election several times in the last 10 years. Previous attempts by the voting Public have been rebuffed by the courts, and it looks like the issue will be back before the Nebraska Supreme Court in the next few months.

Under the term limit statute several State Senators are serving their final term in the Unicameral. One Senator in particular (No it is not Ernie Chambers, but he is thinking about it) filed a petition to run for re-election and was denied by the powers that be under the term limit statute. This Senator knew he would be denied the opportunity to run again and has a prepared lawsuit to challenge the Constitutionality of the term limit statute.

Note: The names of the parties are not important, and that information can found just about anywhere. It doesn't matter who is suing who over the statute, the question is; Is it Constitutional?

Term limits on the surface may seem like a good idea, but in my reality it is not.

People of voting age have gotten continuely apathetic about who it is that represents them since the end or World War II. Without a doubt there have been some fairly incompetant people elected to higher office in the last sixty years, from both parties.

The answer to this seems to be; We're to busy to vote so we will limit the time they have to slop at the public trough and all will be well.

How's that for apathy??

Some scumbag politico gets elected and we don't have to worry about voting because in a few years he/she'll be out on their pompus ass in a few years anyway.

Such a system is an excuse for a person not to perform their Civic Duty; "Well yea I really oughta vote, but the asshat will be out of office in a few years anyway so why bother".

What about me and all of the others that take our Civic Duty seriously by studying the issues and voting for whom we feel is the most qualified candidate?

Quite possibly I may think the incumbant has been doing a very good job and would very much like to vote for him/her again.

Term Limits Deny me the right to vote for the candidate that I deem most qualified.

The apathetic people all turned out to vote for term limits so they wouldn't have to pay attention to the issues and make an informed decision at the ballot box. Too many people can't be bothered to become familiar with the issues, it gets in the way of their sewing guild, bowling league of kids soccor games.

If more people would do their Civic Duty and vote we would not need the term limits that deny me my right to vote for the candidate I deem best suited for the job.

In fact it is even easier today to become informed that it ever has. A very large portion of the public has, or knows someone who has access to the internet. A few minutes spent on any of the state, county or local websites will inform a prospective voter of all the information they need to know about the candidates.

Here are a couple of suggestions;

Dad - instead of surfing for porn tonight after Mom and the kids go to bed, why not look up some info on the candidates?

Mom - instead of spending that 5 or 6 hours in a chatroom today while hubby is at work and the kids are at school, why not look up some info on the candidates?

How's this for an idea? Put the kids to bed and both of you get online and learn something about the people that represent you.

As I said earlier the names of the parties are not important, I don't even care if we share the same philisophical ideas on any of the other issues. We do agree on this one. I hope that the State Supreme Court finds the statute unconstitutional.

Term Limits are a bad idea and in my mind always have been. It lets the apathetic go on being apathetic.

Their is no excuse for apathy when it comes to ones Civic Duty and term limits are not the answer to that apathy. Term limits encourages the apathy to continue.


Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Here are the Ordinances

This is a follow up to the previous two posts concerning the Ordinance proposed by Police Chief Tom Casady and the City Councils subsequant enactment of same on November 14th 2005 by a vote of 7 - 0.

The Ordinance creates a rebuttable presumption that; Since any vehicle kept or stored within the City limits for more than 30 days is PRESUMED (can you say guilty until proven innocent) to be being operated on the streets of the City and as such shall be registered in compliance with section 10.08 of the Municipal code. the Police to enter upon your property to verify unregistered or incoreectly registered vehicles and issue a summons for the same.

Currently there is no State Statute or City Ordinance that prohibits having an unregistered or incorrectly registered vehicle on your property.

The applicable section of the city ordinance are reprinted here. Bold and/or Color highlights are mine.

10.08.010 Registration Required

It shall be unlawful for any person to park or operate any motor vehicle upon any street or public way within the city without having registered it as provided by the laws of the State of Nebraska............. (Ord. 156 ~1; July 9, 1990: PC ~ 10.48.010: Ord. 13753 ~ 1; January 30, 1984: Ord. 5699 ~ 1101, as amended by Ord. 6673; November 25, 1957).

10.08.040 Registration; Fictitious License Plates.

No person shall operate, drive, or cause to be operated or driven, a motor vehicle on the public streets, alleys, or other public property, which bears (a) any number plate or certificate other than as assigned to it for the current registration period or (b) any fictitious or altered number plates or registration certificate (Ord. 16120 ~ 1; May 26, 1992).

This amendment to the present ordinance (10.08.010) would allow law enforcement officers to go on "quasi-public property for the purposes of ticketing non-registerd vehicles and would afford City Prosecution a rebuttable PRESUMPTION (In plain English you have to prove your innocence because you have already without the benefit of trial been presumed guilty) that vehicles stored or kept within a City for a period in excess of 30 days are presumed to be operated or parked on the streets of the City.

Please note that a Rebuttable Presumption is the same thing as saying; YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

If you have an unregistered or incorrectly registered vehicle on your property and you receive a summons, then you MUST take time off from work, appear in court and PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. This Ordinance allows you to rebutt the citation but only at your own personal expense. In other words you may get it dismissed, but you will still be "fined" the amount of money you loose from work, parking meters etc..... Either way it will cost you money out of your pocket.

How many more ways can I say that the Chief of Police Tom Casady has pushed through Ordinances, now and in the past that are contrary to the State Statutes and not only the Constitution of the State of Nebraska, but the Constitution of the United States as well?

How many more ways can I say that the City Council has voted for and passed Ordinances, now and in the past that are Contrary to the State Statutes and not only the Constitution of the State of Nebraska, but the Constitution of the United States as well?

It doesn't matter whether you keep your registrations current or even detest those that don't this Ordinance should make every single Lincolnite mad and I mean damn mad. If you care anything at all about due process or the age old legal concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" you need to contact all of the members of the City Council and the Mayors office and express your thoughts on this blatant disregard for your rights as a Citizen of the City of Lincoln, State or Nebraska, United States of America.

Monday, November 14, 2005

City Council - 7 Citizens Rights - 0

In a very short segmant of the City Council Meeting on the 14th of November every single member of the Lincoln City Council voted to drive another wooden stake through the hearts of their Constituency.

It has been painfully obvious for a very long time the Members of this City Council have absolutely no respect for the individual rights of the citizens trhey are suppose to serve.

In a unanimous vote the Council created, at the request of Field Marshall Police Chief Tom Casady, an Ordinance that allows City Police Officers to "Legally" tresspass on private property and write citations for something that is not even a crime.

Since there is no law that states a vehicle kept on Private Property must be registered, the Lincoln City Police Department now has the power to enter on private property without a warrant and issue a citation for NOTHING.

A valid registration is only required to operate said motor vehicle on public thourogh fares. In order to obtain a conviction for an unregistered or faulty registered vehicle the burden of proof is on the municipality to prove that vehicle is being operated on public streets. Again I say, the Lincoln City Police Department now has the power to enter on private property without a warrant and issue a citation for NOTHING.

The danger here is that while "Legally" on that private property they can use the "Doctrine of plain sight" "Discover" other potentially illegal activity.
This is just one in a long string of travesties that has been perpetrated on the Lincoln Community by "Tommy Boy" Casady and aided and abetted by the incompetance of the Lincoln City Council. It seems like every time "Tommy Boy" blows smoke up the City Councils chimney they wipe the soot from their eyes and give him what he wants.

Incompetence ?? Yes I said that. The members of this Council are so swollen up with themselves and their perceived power that they either routinely ignore their duty to the State Constitution and Statutes or they simply do not care and vote to violate that sacred document with impunity.

I doubt seriously that it would do any good to remind these sloppers at the public trough of their oath of office and what it really means to SERVE the people that elected them.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

State Constitution means nothing to Casady

Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady is once again seeking to have the rights and privacy of Lincolns citizens stopped at the City Limits.

In his latest crusade to impose his Napoleonic dictum on the populace whose rights he has supposedly sworn to protect Tommy Boy wants the City Council to give him and his minions "authority" to "legally tresspass" on private property to issue citations for un or improperly registered vehicles.

But because the vehicle was parked in a driveway, the police were powerless to do anything about it, short of conducting a stakeout to bust the owner if they drive the vehicle off the private property into the public domain.

Well DUH Chief that is the way it is suppose to be. Neither I nor anyone else is required by state law to have either; A) a vehicle that is not running or B) is never used off of our PRIVATE property registered.

If I have an old 4 wheel drive for pulling stumps and plowing snow in my drive and that vehicle NEVER leaves my property I DO NOT under state law have to register that vehicle.

If a particular vehicle is NOT running for what ever reason I can let the registration lapse and when that vehicle is repaired or rebuilt the Department of Motor Vehicles will let me sign an affidavit to that affect and I will only have to pay the registration from the day I am re-registering it.


Because I am required to show proof of insurance at the time of registration this SCHEME will also require me to carry insurance for a PARKED on PRIVATE PROPERTY vehicle that I am not driving either becasue it is broke down, I am restoring it or I simply choose not to use it on PUBLIC thoroughfares.

State law requires one to show proof of insurance at the time of registration.

Again there is no state statute that compells me to insure a vehicle that I am NOT operating on public thoroughfares.

Casady asked the City Council to amend city ordinance to allow police to go after improperly registered vehicles that are parked in “quasi-public” places, such as driveways and private parking lots. Basically, “anywhere a door-to-door salesman can go.”

Hey Chief, get this through your head; There is a big difference between You, your Officers and door to door salesmen.

A door to door salesman is a PRIVATE CITIZEN acting in that capacity. You are a PUBLIC OFFICIAL acting in an OFFICIAL CAPACITY.

I can tell a door to door salesman to get off my property if I don't like what he/she is selling. Under this grandiose scheme I do not have that option when you come sneaking around MY PROPERTY at three in the morning shoving your Badge in my Face. In addittion the opportunity for abuse is just too great.

Consider the following;

Officer in Court: Your Honor I could not plainly see whether the registration was current from the street, it is a rather long driveway and the license plate was obscrured by a bicycle leaning against the back of the car, under the authority of city ordinance I entered upon the property and in the course of my investigation I noted that ________ (fill in the blank) and subsequently arrested the defendant on a charge of ______ (fill in the blank).

Do I believe that the local gendarmes will under the colour of this ordinance use it to sneak around private property in the middle of the night as a pretext to discover other crimes they may or may not suspect? Unequivocally YES I DO.

The change would help police enforce registration laws, which police have been focusing on since early last month. The council will likely vote on the proposal during its next meeting on Monday.

If you have an unregistered and uninsured vehicle on your property you are not committing a crime. If this ordinance passes you will still not be committing a crime. Afterall the ordinance does not make it a crime to have the unregistered vehicle on your property, it only gives the Chief and his minions the authority to tresspass on your property at their liesure.

All this appears to be is a scheme to generate more revenue for the city coffers. What Casady proposes is that the City give him the authority to tresspass on private property and issue citations for something that IS NOT against the law.

If you value your property rights and privacy then contact your City Council Persons and tell them how you feel about this blatant disregard for the rights of the people that Casady is again perpetuating on the city.

If the City Council does pass this then they will have, once again violated the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of Nebraska.