Walther P 22 Broken Slide

At a bowling pin shoot that I was recently competing in one of the contestants experienced a massive malfunction with a Walther P 22.

The Slide Broke



As can be seen in the photos about a 3/8" piece of the full front end of the slide broke off. It does not appear to have been cracked and finally gave way. The entire break is fresh with no signs of oxidation that would be present if it had been partially cracking over time and then finally failed completely.




The sidearm in question is equipped with the five in barrel and fake muzzle break.

For those not familiar with the Walther P 22 it is available in two barrel lengths; three and a half and five inches. The three and a half in barrel when installed is even with the end of the slide. The five and a half inch barrel when installed extends an inch and a half past the end of the slide. Rather than just having the barrel stick out from the end of the slide Walther design a fake muzzle break that covers that portion of the barrel that extends past the end of the slide. It is there for purely cosmetic reasons.

This particular P22 is 3-4 years old and has had thousands of rounds through it. The owner assured me that it does have less than 10,000 through it though. His son was shooting it when it catastrophically malfunctioned.

The usual complaint I hear and have personally experienced with the Walther P 22 is a roll pin working its way out on the top rear of the slide and blocking the safety from completely engaging. This problem is easily solved with the application of two roll pin punches, one on each side of the pin.

The owner of the offending Walther has since been in contact with the Company and has arranged to return the firearm to them for evaluation and repair. I will try to update this memo when the owner has more information.

Reflections on a Tragedy

In the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech there has been a lot of media posturing from both sides of the firearms for personal protection issue.

Now that a bit of time has passed I want to make a few observations.

An individual determined to cause as much havoc as possible in the shortest amount of time possible will not be deterred by any law, rule or regulation. There is no law that can be past that will prevent this from happening again. To many people died Monday because A) They had not been conditioned to respond to an event like this B) They were not allowed to possess the necessary tools to protect themselves and C) They were raised to believe that it is the Governments job to protect them.

There are a number of school shootings BECAUSE the shooter knows that there is likely no one there to shoot back thus ending the carnage before the maximum planned effect can be realized.

How many existing laws or rules were broken?

It was against school policy for students and faculty to possess firearms on campus. Mondays maniacal marauder violated that on two counts.

At various times prior to and during the rampage the firearms were likely carried in a concealed manner. It has not been reported that the shooter possessed a Concealed Carry Permit thus violating Virginia law on multiple counts of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

It is illegal, immoral and unethical to take a human life without legal justification, as in the case of self defense. That law was broken thirty how many times?

One more or a hundred more can not and will not prevent it from happening again.

The Police, may God have a special place in heaven for them for the work that they do, cannot be everywhere all of the time. These situations will continue to happen no matter how many gunlaws are passed. It is the responsibility, nay I say duty of every American Citizen to repel such actions when immediately confronted with them and if that means using a firearm then so be it.

Are Adult Students mature and competent or not?

It seems odd that students of higher learning are thought to be mature enough to grasp the concepts of Chemistry, Biology, and Juris Prudence, but are too immature to accept the responsibility for their own safety.

As a student I would be outraged at an institution that tells me on one hand; You are bright, young and intellegent, we want a person like you to pay us thousands of dollars to further educate you. Then on the other hand; We don't think you children are old enough, intelligent and mature enough to be trusted with the tools to look after your own well being.

There is not one law that can ever be enacted that will ever prevent what happened at Virginia Tech on Monday.

In a recent article on the Lincolnite Blog Mr. Wilson posed the question what would Lincoln do if it happened here at the Lincoln campus of the University of Nebraska.

A tragedy like this can occur at any time or place. We can wish things like this would never happen, there are steps that can be taken to minimize it when it happens but it can never be prevented from happening.

It should come as no surprise that I believe that allowing legally licensed citizens (students and facualty included) to carry on campus is one of the steps necessary to minimize an occurrence like this when it happens again.

It will suprise some to note that I do not think the firearm is the best or only step that needs to be taken.

A few years ago I mentioned in this Blog something Jeff Snyder, a prominent New York City Attorney told me;

Question: Do you know how people in America train to react to violent situations?

Answer: Then sit in front of their televisions and watch it happen over and over again.

Question: Do you know what happens when American citizens are thrust into violent situations?

Answer: They stand there and watch it happen to them.

We react the way we have trained ourselves to react, and for most of us that is to do NOTHING except stand there dumbstruck and watch it play out around or to us.

From the coverage of the VT events that I have seen I would have to say that Jeff is right.

Not all but some of the students I saw interviewed said that they just stood there unable to believe what was happening.

They were essentially frozen in place with a deer trapped in the headlights look while they were shot, shot at or witnessed someone else be shot. They reacted the way there were trained to react.

They stood there and watched it happen.

I always caution people I counsel on personal protection that your mind is your best weapon. Be cognizant of what is going on around you.

Situational Awareness

Situational awareness can and does prevent a majority of events from occurring. You do not have to believe that it is happening, all you have to believe is that something bad is happening and that you will be safer someplace else and as fast as you can go there.

What If # 1

If you leave a building at night headed to your car in a dark parking lot and things don't look or feel right TURN AROUND AND GO BACK IN THE BUILDING even if you may be armed. No one has anything to prove by proceeding into a potential danger zone, even if you are armed.

What If # 2

If you hear what you think are gun shots do not stand there trying to figure out what is going on or why. Immediately with due haste proceed in the opposite direction even if you are armed.

What If # 3

If you are walking along the street and note some unsavory characters a block or so down on your side of the street change direction or cross the damn street even if you may be armed.

Responsibly Armed Citizens

Responsible Concealed Carry permit holders do not, or should not proceed in the direction of a known threat because they are carrying a firearm.

These responsible individuals know that the firearm is the absolute last resort when all other options of avoidance have failed and the threat of death or grave bodily harm is so imminent that the use of the firearm is the only option left.

I have always maintained and still do that SITUATIONAL AWARENESS is the best tool we have to protect ourselves from violence. If you can see or sense it coming far enough in advance it can be avoided.

People get your eyes of off the damn sidewalk and constantly scan the area around you. Be aware of your surroundings. Go wide around corners especially at night. Stay away from poorly lit areas at any time of the day. Do not make yourself look like a potential victim.

Criminals are more prone to prey on those that appear to be an easy mark. The ones that walk with their heads down or so engrossed in a cell phone conversation that the predator doesn't have to chase his victim, all he/she has to do is wait like a spider for someone to unknowingly walk right into their web.

It happens everyday, everywhere. Wake up people and start paying attention to what is going on around you.

The Chief's Corner...... aka Tom Casady Chief of Police Lincoln, Nebraska

Welcome to the Blogosphere Chief Casady

Anyone that been a reader of this Blog for any length of time or perused the archives knows that I have written some very critical commentaries concerning Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady.

It is also well known (or should be) that I have written an equal number of articles praising Tom for what he has accomplished in his tenure as Chief of the Lincoln Police Department.

It might also surprise some that he has read most or all of them

Yes I use the screen name "Gunscribe" on this Blog and on some other message forums, but I am far from anonymous. The people I write about, especially those in Public Service, for the most part, know who I am and I meet and greet with them at local functions from time to time.

Jeff at Alphecca once told me, "Tim be more of a Media Whore .. like me"

Besides that if anyone was paying attention I (by name) and this Blog were featured on virtually all of the media outlets locally, some regionally and a few nationally last year.

In essence I do use a screen name but I have never hidden behind it.

Something else that I haven't written much about is the communication that I have with Chief Casady. The Chief and I have known each other personally for a few years and exchange phone calls and/or E-mails on an irregular basis. Occassionally he gets my answering machine and I always get the vivacious Virginia Fisher (whom I have met by the way) before getting put through to the Chief. Personally I think I get the better end of the deal.

On an even more irregular basis Tom and I actually get to sit down and shoot the bulls.....eye. It was on one of these occasions (sometime last fall I think) we were discussing this Blog "From the Heartland" when the Chief opined that he was entertaining the idea of authoring a blog as well.

At the time I thought it was, and still do, a great idea. I forthrightly encouraged him to go ahead with it. I know the Chiefs a big computer guy and was very capable of doing it himself but I even offered to help him set it up when he was ready.

I guess he didn't need any help as Chief Tom Casady now has a Blog and he is rapidly gaining a number of regular readers. Many of them are Bloggers as well and are adding him to their Blogrolls. (Of course a story in the local fishwrapper helped speed things along)

The Chief's Corner

The Chief has always had an open door policy and a blog opens that door even wider as witnessed by the number of comments he is already receiving on the articles he has penned. I do know that this is not a whim or spur of the moment political thing as referenced in some of the comments on his Blog. Chief Casady was interested in the concept for at least the last six months that I am aware of and I know a lot of thought on his part has gone into this project since then.

Whether you love him or hate him Chief Casady's Blog is going to be a good read.

You may not agree with him but he is a very articulate individual and more than capable of debating his positions rationally. I do not agree with him on every issue, and a few spirited conversations have ensued. Disagree with him I may but I respect the Chief and his ability to debate the stands he takes on certain issues.

Congratulations Chief

I would be humbled to know if my encouragement early on had some small part in your decision to finally go ahead with this project. It is the best way I know for you to speak directly to the people you serve, without having it laundered through the local media, most of whom will put their own spin on it anyway. It also gives those same people, through the comments section an avenue to respond back to you without having to call or negotiate the metal detectors (in place for a valid reason) to visit your office in person.


Chief Casady's blog is the newest addition to my Blogroll as well.

Again Congratulations Tom, you have been one of my readers for awhile and now I can officially welcome you to this Blog and to the Blogosphere.

Keep us informed Tom and much success with this endeavor.

Gun Dealer experience and an I screwed up Confession

Notice of personal opinion

This post is a narrative of the experiences that I have had with one particular Firearms dealer in the past couple of months and my own personal perceptions about those experiences. References made to or about any specific individual in this entry are my own thoughts and opinons.

Changing Dealers

Several months ago I was distressed to learn that the Federal Firearms Licensed dealer I had lined up to handle transfers for my out of state firearms purchases had given up his license to pursue another more profitable venture. He referred me to a dealer in another town he said he was using now.

I contacted said dealer about a new firearm reciever purchase I had in mind and asked if he would handle the transfer. He indicated his fee would be 25.00 bucks and then told me what his price was for the same item.

I bought three Firearms from him

Being as it would only a few bucks more if I bought it from him I agreed to and did so. I try to support the local dealers by buying directly from them when they can get what I want and their prices are in line with the going rate nationally.

From the very begining I felt his tone had a rather gruff edge to it, but I thought his price was fair. Fair enough in fact that I made a subsequent purchase of another firearm, a Military Surplus Mauser.

That was followed up by a third purchase. This was also a brand new firearm reciever and identical in make and model to the first.

In about a two month time period I paid him over four hundred dollars for three firearms.

Note that all three purchases required the completion of form 4473 at a FFL location. All of the required paerwork for all three sales was legally accomplished.

During one of these transactions nearly four hundred rounds of Military Surplus ammunition was bought from Gun Dealer by one of my offspring. (Offspring was present at all transactions)

Bad day at the Range

When we were finally able to get to the range we discovered that none of the ammunition bought from Gun Dealer would discharge. There was a dent in the primer but no "Ka-pow". We had some other Mil- Spec ammo that Offspring had aquired from another source on hand and since all of it went bang we concluded that it was not the firearm. (The Mauser purchased from Gun Dealer by the way)

Yes the Wife knew I was buying another Gun

I discussed the ammo problem with Gun Dealer and he offered to replace the entire lot at no cost. During the same conversation I asked him if he would mail a copy of his FFL to an out of state FFL that had an almost thiry year old firearm I wanted for my collection. (Not something Gun Dealer had in inventory)

Last Monday (April 9th) I arranged a time with Gun Dealer to pick up the firearm. Offspring and I travelled 80 miles round trip to pick up my "new to me firearm" and exchange the "not go bang bullets". This was fourth transaction with Gun Dealer.

Here fill this out, here's your gun and ammo now get the hell out cause I gotta go

In a whirlwind of a 15-20 minute session we examined the firearm, I filled out the 4473 while Offspring produced the offending ammo and Gun Dealer located "should go bang this time bullets" all the while rushing us as Gun Dealer had a meeting to attend.

Concluding the mild pandemonium it wasn't until we got back to Offsprings home, shortly after 8PM, did I realize that I had forgot to pay Gun Dealer the 25.00 dollar transfer fee. By the time I got to my home Gun Dealer had left a scathing message on my answering machine.

Since it was nearly eleven in the evening when I got home I was hesitant to call him back as I know he has a day job.

By the time I got up the next day there were five more very short tempered messages on my office machine wanting to know when he was going to get his money. By way of the messages I thought they were going to forclose on his home or his kids were going to starve to death in the next twelve hours if he didn't get the 25.00 dollars I owed him.


I called the Dealer on his cell phone as soon as I had gotten out of bed and heard the messages. (I was going to call him anyway) After apologizing profusely I offered to drive back out to his shop that very evening (Tuesday the 10th) and pay him.

He allowed how that wouldn't work for him and that if I wanted I could put a check in an envelope and mail it. I told him I was not comfortable with that and I would really prefer to hand it to him as I wanted to personally apologize and when would be a good time to meet. I really felt bad at the time and still do.

Gun Dealer hemmed and hawed and no specific time was set. Niether of us called the other during the rest of the week. I was out of town Saturday and arrived home that evening to find out that Gun Dealer had been in town and stopped by the house. I was out of town again on Sunday.

Today (Monday the 16th) the wife and I travelled to the Gun Dealers location and I handed him the 25.00 for the original transfer and an additional 10.00 dollars for my lapse of memory last Monday.

Gun Dealer in an obvious state of anger refused to accept my offer of atonement and would hardly speak to me . Several times as I again apologized he threw up his hands in disgust before going back in side slamming the door in my face.

I screwed up and I admit it right here and now for you all to read

I realize that I screwed up in not remembering to hand over the cash the first time, (last Monday) but with all that was going on at the time (filling out the paperwork, examining a newly aquired firearm, exchanging bad ammo for hopefully good ammo and being rushed to leave) it honestly slipped my mind.

I felt bad about it, apologized profusely and offered more than was owed as compensation for the trouble I had caused Gun Dealer only to have it (the extra 10.00 bucks) thrown back at me and a door slammed in my face.

What suprises me is that after nearly 500 dollars worth of business and a plan to aquire at least two more firearms from out of state for my collection Gun Dealer goes so extremely ballistic (my opinion) over a lousy 25.00 screw up that he had a partial hand in.

You'd think he was going to have to file for bankruptcy or something if he didn't have it RIGHT NOW.

But then remember I offered to drive the 80 miles round trip that same day (Tuesday) but he would have none of that. I guess he needed something to bitch about to keep him warm for a few days.

I believe I have done what it should take to make it right and Gun Dealer refuses to accept that.

Personally I believe he enjoys being gruff, angry and short-tempered. Thinking back on all of our interactions I can't think of one where he did not display at least a hint of one of those tendencies. It is my humble opinion that these are not qualities a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer should posess.

"Oh Gawd its you again. Here's your gun, where's my money and now get the hell out" is not an endearing trait that would keep me coming back. Life is too short and I absolutely refuse to pay someone to treat me like shit or act like he is not appreciative of my patronage.

This Gun Dealer ain't the only FFL I have listed in my rolodex.

Terry Edwards,

Since you chose not to discuss this matter further I am conveying my thoughts to you in this open forum. There is a comment section at the end of this post and you are free to respond in any manner you choose.

Personally I don't think much of your short tempered demeanor, nor do I think much of the way you handled this situation. It was mostly my fault and I readily admit that here in public. You had a hand in it as well. I do accept all of the responsibility for it though. It was an honest mistake on my part.

I have sincerely apologized for my actions repeatedly and offered in a telephone conversation Tuesday to drive out to your shop that very day. I was in my opinion and to put it mildly short-temperedly rebuffed.

Since you were unable or unwilling to set a time and place for us to meet I took it upon myself to travel the distance and renumerate you for more than I owed you. You had not asked for any extra and I offered it as an atonement for my short comings in our last transaction.

Your short tempered bordering on violent refusal to accept the added amount and the slamming of the door in my face speaks volumes about your character.

I have tried to set things right with you and I have no idea why you are unwilling to accept my apology and understand that this was an unfortunate and unplanned error on my part.

I have humbled myself before you and asked for your forgiveness, only you can say why this has not been sufficient.

All I can say now is that the ball is in your court now Terry.

Sincerely Yours,

A Humbled and Repentant Gunscribe

The first time I did business with him I told him I ran this website and that if he wanted I would mention him and provide his contact information in hopes that it might generate some business for him.

As I previously stated he has a full time job, the Gun business is apparently a side that he runs from a building next to his house. (All legal and proper by the way). In fact you can find him set up at most of the local Gunshows.

At the time he gave me permission to run his information on this site so I am including it here for anyone that may wish to do business with him.

This has been my experience with this Gun Dealer, your mileage may vary. I certainly hope it does.

Don Imus in the unemployment line

In a way I have to say that I am ambivalent about the whole Don Imus thing.

Yes he has done a lot for charity, yes what he said was reprehensible and yes he has apologized for it.

I have never been a Don Imus fan. I have on occasion watched a few minutes of his show on MSNBC once in a while when I happen to be up that early and the other news stations are regurgitating stuff I have already heard ad nausium. Given that, my opinion is that Don Imus has been or acts like he has been a burnt out shell of his former self for a very long time. I have long compared The Imus in The Morning on MSNBC to the movie "Weekend at Bernie's".

What I thought I was watching was a hunched up old curmudgeon propped up behind a microphone and prodded to speak every so often so that the rest of the crew would have jobs.

I guess I really don't care whether he kept his job or not since I never really have paid any attention to him anyway.

But then what do I know, I am still waiting for an apology for the Tawana Brawley affair and the comments Sharpton made about the Duke LaCrosse players a year ago.

I'm not holding my breath for the day Rosie gets the axe either, but that is a whole other story.

A 3 Piece Suit for a Dress Race no Suprise

Svaboda bests Beutler by a Bit in Primary

Correction: When I first learned the results of the primary I could swear that I heard Ken Svaboda had garnered more votes than Chris Beutler. As an anonymous commenter and further checking on my part pointed out Beutler actually got more votes than Svaboda. Thanks for setting that straight who ever anonymous is.

Well the local primary voting is behind us now. There was no great surprise in the Mayors race Democrat Chris Beutler and Republican Ken Svoboda advance to the final round.

I still stand by comments on this race that I have made in the past;

All we are doing is trading a dress for a 3 piece suit, with either candidate we will end up with Coleen Seng Lite.

Camp leads Abbot

John Camp another Councilman that I support garnered nearly 50% of the vote in his district to face Allen Abbott in a run off.

Spatz gets McRoys Attention

I was pleased to see that John Spatz best incumbent Annette McRoy. Since they were the only two running in District four both would automatically advance to the general election anyway.

Annette whom I have felt has not been an effective representative for her district was cited in the Lincoln Journal Star;

Incumbent Annette McRoy also plans to refocus her efforts on the campaign trail, after slipping into second position with just 54 votes separating her from District 4 leader John Spatz. The two are vying for representation of northwest Lincoln.

Annette it is a little too late to refocus, you should have done that over the last four years. You can't change your record now. You can try to explain away some of the things you have done but you can't change it.

It remains to be seen whether John Spatz will be any different, but having spent time with both candidates I believe he will be more effective than what we have now.

District Four needs a change in leadership.

It's not the movie I wanted to see but ...

Shooter aka Point of Impact

Having read or listened to all of Stephen Hunters books about "Bob Lee Swagger" and his dad "Earl" I was anticipating the release of the movie "Shooter".

Shooter is supposed to be based on Hunters book "Point of Impact". What I was hoping to see is a period based movie on the book as written.

What I saw was a modernized version. In the print version "Bob Lee" began his military start and end in the 1960's jungles of Southeast Asia. In the movie "Bob's" military career ended in present day Africa.

No it was not the movie I was hoping they would make but I feel like it is a good movie none the less.

The basic premise is still the same;

A retired Marine Corp sniper after losing his spotter to enemy fire retires, along with his dog to a hermits life in the mountains. A few years later his is recruited by a supposed Government agency to prevent an alleged plot to assasinate the President.

As the plot turns the President was not the intended target and "Bob Lee" is framed for the assassination.

When I heard that the movie had been made in the present tense I was determined to see it anyway and cop an attitude about how badly Hollywood had screwed up another good book.

Much to my chagrin I liked what they did. The basic plot and suprise ending remained and for the most part there was no over the top violence simply for the sake of violence.

There were a few verbal snipes about the current state of politics, but over all I think they did a good job of morphing the "Bob Lee" of the 1970's to a believable first decade of the 2000's "Bob Lee".

The Plame Game and the 8 canned Justice Leaguers

G.W. 6

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire and hire them when ever he wants, it is a function of the Executive Branch of Government. That 6 years into his Presidency He elected to fire a few of them should be a non event.

But like rabid dogs the left is all over it snarling, barking and chomping on about how disgraceful it is that eight Attorneys were told to join the unemployment line.

Slick Willie 92

Where were these same bastions of protocol when Slick Willie back in 1992 moments after taking the Oath of Office fired every damn one of them.

I didn't hear Leahy, Schumer, Biden or any of the other Democrats calling for Janet Reno's head. Hell she hadn't even been confirmed yet, Bill did that one all by his lonesome.

Hillarys Hypocracy

What I find amusing is that even Hillary is calling for Gonzales to go. In other words it's okay for her lying cheating husband to axe them all on his first day in office, but George Bush needs to can Gonzales for firing 8 after 6 years in office.

Some Rinos side with Dems

The part that really disgusts me is there seems to be a few Republicans that are calling for the Attorney Generals head as well.

Let the House and Senate hold their investigations

Let them subpoena Rove, Miers and who ever else they want to. Get it out in the public arena, shine the light on how hypocritical the platform of the left is.

President Bush offered them the opportunity to save face by having his people talk to the Libs off the record to explain Public Employee personnel issues in private, as it should be.

Now not only will the 8 Attorneys have lost their job they will be forced to endure the public humiliation as to why they lost them in the first place.

They will lose this like they lost the Plame Game

Last week Valerie in all her smugness testified under oath that she was a covert agent for CIA. Moments after she got done the person responsible for the creation of the Covert Agent Act testified.

Since she wrote the criteria she should know whether Plame is covered by the act or not and she testified under oath that the vim and vivacious Val was not and is not a covert agent with CIA.

Of course this is something that most of us including Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald have know for the last few years anyway.

After all of his investigating, posturing and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars "Fitz" never indicted anyone for leaking Val to the press. He knew she wasn't covert from the beginning of his witch hunt.

Which begs the question; Why did he need to investigate a crime that never happened?

Considering all of that it took brass boobs for Plame to take an oath to tell the truth and then state for the record that she was a covert agent for CIA. Covert Agents do not enter the front entrance of CIA headquarters in plain sight day in and day out for years on end.

It seems that everyone but her, her husband (the one that likely outed her in the first place) and a few Radical left wing leaders knew she was not protected by Covert Status.

When, if ever will she be prosecuted for lying under oath?

The Libs will lose the Justice League 8 debacle just like they lost the Plame Game. The shear audacity to make eight firings after six years an issue when their poster boy canned 92 on day one is incredulous.

Score: Whitehouse 2 - Leftwing Libs 0

No good deed goes unpunished

State Employee suspended for helping heart patient

State snowplow driver Chuck Odom has been suspended for having initiative and a heart. Apparently Tim Weander does not feel these are qualities that a Public Servant in the state of Nebraska should have. It seems that Weander and those above him in state government would rather have one of the people they are paid to serve die than see one of their rules broken. Sort of sounds like the Gestapo to me.

“There are exceptions,” Weander said, “but that is the policy.”

So what exactly does that mean Timmy?

That you would rather see Mr. Howard dead than have your precious policy violated? It would appear that you place brownshirt lockstep adherence to your rules above the lives of the very citizens that you are paid to serve.

If that is the case then it is my opinion that you Mr. Weander and any one above you that feels Chuck Odom did wrong is a disgrace to the people of Nebraska.

Tax payers needed assistance

Chuck responded to the calls from the wife of a man with a heart condition. Bob Howard was having chest pains and his wife Alice was unable to get friends or private snowplow contractors to clear their quarter mile drive way so that they could get to a scheduled heart appointment.

Chuck Odom used state equipment to clear the Howard drive so that the Mrs. Howard could get her ailing husband to the Doctor.

Apparently the Howards felt that Bob's condition at that time did not warrant a call to 911. Since Mr. Howard did have a heart condition and was having chest pains that could have changed in an instant.

“Bob had begun to feel some angina the night before, and it was getting worse with his frustration that we might not be able to keep his doctor’s appointment,” she said.

Mr Howards condition was getting worse, in all likelihood if Mr. Odom had not acted it is likely that Bob's condition would have worsened to the point a 911 call was necessary.

Chuck Odom should be lauded as a Hero for saving a life instead of being punished for countermanding Field Marshal Weanders policies.

Tim Weander Department District engineer for the Omaha area said that 'with exceptions" it is forbidden to use department equipment on private property.

Well gee Ebenezer .... er ah I mean Tim if this doesn't qualify as an emergency I don't know what is. Why is this even an issue? Chuck Odom is exactly the type of Public Servant that Nebraska should have.

Judging from the majority of comments made at the end of the LJS article I am glad to see that I am not the only one to feel this way.

Cold hearted lowlife Scumbag idiocy

There are some that would rather see Mr. Howard dead than for a Public Servant to do a good deed for a member of the public he serves.

One of the commenter's suggested that the Howards should have called 911 as it is the responsibility of the First Responders to trudge through a quarter mile of deep, blowing and drifting snow with all of the necessary equipment including a gurney to get to the Howard residence.

This idiot also insinuated that it is the job of the Responders to push, pull and haul the gurney loaded with Mr. Howard all the while assisting a worried Mrs. Howard back to their rescue vehicle through the same deep blowing and drifting snow. After all that is what they get paid for. Right?

My guess is that this dumbass can't think his/her way through a fast food order off of a drive through menu board.

How in the hell can any sane person suggest that Paramedics should they have been called to transport a heart patient on a gurney for a quarter of a mile under those conditions. If the patient were not in serious condition when they started the trek he would be by the time they got him to the ambulance. Or worse ... dead.

The fact that more than one person responded in a negative manner speaks volumes about what Nebraska is becoming;

These cold hearted lowlife scumbags would rather see Mr Howard dead than for a Public Servant to be commended for service above and beyond his job description.

What would have happened if the Howards had to call 911 for a medical emergency. The First responders would have assessed the situation and called upon government snow removal equipment for the drive to be cleared wasting valuable time that could have been spent tending to a heart patient.

A credit to Nebraska

Mr Odom recognized the situation for what it was and knew if the Howards needed 911 assistance that he or other snowplow drivers would be called to clear the drive so that emergency vehicles could get to the patient.

That 911 assistance was not needed is of no consequence, the fact that Mr Howard had a heart condition and was having chest pains is reason enough for Mr. Odom to do what he did. Should the Hwards had to call 911 the actions of Mr. Odom would have likely saved Mr. Howard.

But then those lowlife cold hearted scumbags that condemn Chuck Odom for what he did would sleep better at night knowing that Mr. Howard died while the First Responders sat one quarter of a mile away unable to assist until Chuck showed up with his plow.

What I take away from all of the comments that chastise Mr Odom is this;

I don't give two owl hoots in the forest whether Mr Howard died or not as long as the policies of this state were not broken by some lowly public servant. How dare he be so uppity as to save some ones life while he is on the States time clock.

Letter of Appreciation for outstanding service to the citizens of Nebraska

To Chuck Odom,

On behalf of no one but myself I congratulate you on a job well done Mr. Odom. You are a credit to Nebraska and the people of this state. If only there were more like you in service to the people.

As a taxpayer I thank you Mr Odom for serving on my behalf and going above and beyond your call to duty.

You Sir have my sincerest respect and it would be my pleasure to some day shake your hand.

Gunscribe

Rock your Glock Schedule for 2007

History

Nebraska has not had a sanctioned Glock Shooting Sports Foundation event. Anyone wanting to compete in these venues must travel to Colorado, Missouri or Minnesota.

Several years ago Chris Zeeb a local certified Glock armorer and competition shooter approached GSSF about sponsoring an event in the Cornhusker state. GSSF was not interested.

Undaunted by this rejection Chris started up the event we know as Rock Your Glock. This will be the third year that Chris and a myriad of volunteers will host the matches at the Lincoln Izaak Walton League shooting range.

Unlike the GSSF matches the Rock Your Glock competition a competitor is not required to shoot a Glock. As I have mentioned in previous posts Sig's, Hi-powers, 1911's and a host of other firearms are welcome.

This Year

In fact last year Chris modified the rules so that single stack magazine sidearms no longer have to compete against the normal capacity semi-automatics. Going a step further Chris even created a class for revolvers.

The Rock Your Glock events are a fun way to spend a weekend morning. They normally run from 7:30 AM to about Noon. In fact you do not even have to be there at 7:30 AM to sign up. You can show up anytime prior to the noon hour sign in, shoot the courses and leave. The scores will be posted on the Rock Your Glock website that evening.

In the past two years all of the events have been on Saturday mornings. That changes this year as two of the events will be on Sunday.

If your interested in Rocking your Glock (or other make of sidearm) Check out the Rock Your Glock website and come out and safely enjoy your firearms.

The schedule this year is as follows;

Saturday - May 12th, 2007

Sunday - June 10th, 2007

Sunday - August 12th, 2007

Saturday - September 8th, 2007

Safety

Please be reminded that with all shooting sports there are rules that need to be adhered to for the safety of all participants. It is the responsibility of all competitors to be familiar with them.

Besides a safe firearm a shooter will be required to have appropriate eye and ear protection.

Equipment

It takes 100 rounds of ammunition to complete the three courses of fire. Having more than that is beneficial should a stage/s need to be re-shot should the timing equipment malfunction.

It is also helpful, but not necessary for semi-automatic shooters to have 3-4 magazines that hold at least ten rounds for their firearm. Revolver shooters should consider having 3-4 speed loaders, but again it is not a necessity.

Directions to the Lincoln Ikes can be found on the Rock Your Glock website. Hope to see you all out there.

Shaking up Local Politics

Patte you will be missed

I was distressed to hear that Patte Newman has decided not to seek re-election to the City Council. I have enjoyed working with her on a number of issues. In fact Patte is the only Council Person that holds monthly meetings in her district that feature guest speakers from many of the cities Governmental Departments. These will be sorely missed if her replacement does not keep the tradition.

John Spatz for City Council

In the Northwest District John Spatz, (pronounced "spots") a Republican is seeking to unseat Annette McRoy for a seat on the council. In the brief half hour that I spent talking with him Johns seems to be on the same page as I am concerning most of the issues. If he is true to his word, and I think he is, he will make a good addition to the council.

If you live in the Northwest District 4 as I do and are as frustrated by the lack of representation by Annette McRoy as I am check out his website and consider donating or volunteering some time to his campaign. Even putting up a yard sign will help get the word out. The Northwest needs representation on the City Council that we have not had in a very long time.

I didn't even know McRoy was running

It appears that our current council person is taking her re-election for granted as the election is but a few short weeks away and I have not heard one word from her either from mailings, phone calls or a knock on the door.

That in and of itself is why we need a change. If Council Person McRoy can't even be bothered to associate herself with her constituency at election time it is a direct reflection on her lack of service to those that elected her in the first place.

Excerpt from a conversation I had with Annette last year;

Me: You do understand that any ordinance you pass must not contravene the State Constitution don't you.

Annette: The city has the power to pass our own laws irregardless of the State, we do it all the time.

Annette suffers from the same dementia that too many in local government do; They do not understand that any ordinance they enact must be in accordance with only those powers they have been granted by the legislature. If they (the city council) have not been given a power to regulate something then they specifically cannot do it.

There have been far too many ordinances, in the last few years, voted into law by the Lincoln City Council that cannot not pass Constitutional muster. City Council persons are bound by oath to obey the State Constitution and for too long they have been derelict in that duty.

Been Awhile

For all of my regular readers (all 3 of you) I am still around. The much shortened trip to Oklahoma was a success and I will have a post about it sometime soon.

Personal Updates

It seems that the local Gendarmes have yet to locate the Hit & Run Driver or the motorcar.

I recently turned the big 50.

The War

I often wonder how many of the deaths suffered by our Military can be laid at the laptops of the American News Media and how many more will have to die at their hands.

This is a war. Wars are not Sunday church socials. Send the Media home on the next transport and let the Military do what it has been trained to do ....... Kill people and break things. I believe we would be a whole lot farther along and a lot less American Soldiers would be dead or wounded if it were not for the Media.

Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs of war.

What part of WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON US do some people not understand? We have no choice but to fight. Is that so hard to understand? If we were not fighting them over THERE, we would have to fight them HERE.

The Mayor

Coleen Seng had been insistent on appointing a new Fire Chief before her term ends in a few short days. I am sure she saw this as part of her legacy. Thankfully there was enough pressure exerted from all sides of the political spectrum demanding that she hold off and let the new Mayor make that choice. Grudgingly I am sure she agreed not to appoint a new chief.

Obama

If you thought Jimmy Carter was bad watch what happens if this guy gets the office.

Hilary

Has she ever had to answer a tough question about who she is and what she stands for?

Biden

Can he keep his foot out of his mouth long enough to give a State of the Union Speach?

Tancrado

A longshot with the right idea on border security.

Hagel

Well I have had plenty to say about him in the past.

Gengrich

Would be a good president but has a lot of baggage I think.

Well enough for now

Three days Late and a few dollars shorter

Off to Oklahoma

We should have left two days ago, but due to the events told in the previous post we were unable too. No neither the owner, driver or vehicle has been located yet (Friday afternoon).

We are heading out at zero dark thirty for the Chain Ranch for a few days of rest, relaxation and hunting. My brother got there Wednesday and has already bagged one nice hog.

Our time there this year has regrettably been shortened but we are still happy to be going as until last night we weren't sure we would be going at all.

Will post when we get back.

Here's hoping that you all have a very happy and prosperous New Year.

Merry Christmas

What a wonderful Christmas present.



While stopped at a traffic signal we received this lovely parting gift from a probable drunk driver with no insurance Christmas Eve morning. The driver did not hang around long enough for us to say thank you but we were able to get the license plate numbers and the owner of the car has been identified. It is has been more than 48 hours past and the local Gendarmes have yet to locate the other vehicle or driver.

Yes it was a hit and run

Information is sketchy at this point but it seems the owner of the car is pretty well known to the local Constabulary. Over and above that this is the third accident that the owner has been involved in in the past year.

And a Happy New year

Lincoln, Nebraska to profit from Saterday night fights

Sometime in January the city council will be asked to legalize drunken brawls in the cities parks.

This would be funny if it didn't seriously piss me off

The Parks & Rec Dept wants the City Fathers (and Mothers) to enact an ordinance that allows the posession and consumption of alcoholic beverages at ampitheater events, fundraisers, family reunions, weddings and other catered affairs.

Follow the Money

Since the city of Lincoln is in the tank for nearly 10 million dollars or more because the pompous ass "I know what's better for you than you do" asses banned smoking at bars and restaurants it doesn't take much reading to figure out what the proposal is all about. Paragraph five out of fifteen to be exact;

Parks board members said allowing alcohol at certain events would help increase usage of the venues and bring in more revenue for the parks department.

The Benchmark for the proposal is the Golf Courses

“A lot of people worried it might turn into a drunken brawl golfing outing,” said the parks board’s chairwoman, Susan Larson-Rodenburg. “I think the parks department has proven itself with the golf courses.”

All it proves Suzy is that you haven't got the slightest idea what your talking about. But let me explain it to you anyway;

There is a real big difference between a couple of guys engaged in a sporting activity drinking a few beers and a bunch of people sitting around the picnic table at a family reunion or wedding imbibing for the sole purpose of getting drunk ...... DUHHHHHH

Well here is another no brainer

Then in 2004, the city began allowing alcohol to be served at fundraisers at the Children’s Museum; alcohol was already allowed at zoo fundraisers.

What does that say about the rich power elite in Lincoln?

It seems that they won't attend charitable functions unless they can "slosh in the sauce" while there. Of course the quickest way to get in someone wallet is to lower their inhibitions ... and a few snorts of Dom Perignon will certainly do that.

Sounds like Pavlov's dogs doesn't it?

Or maybe the power elite are the dogs and the alcohol is the porkchop hanging around the neck of what ever charity is in the balance that night.

As I have made clear in the past I do not smoke and I continue to oppose the smoking ban. I do not drink either and I likely wouldn't have a problem with alcohol in the parks either, but consider the following;

The only requirement to posess and consume alcohol in the parks is that one be at least 21 years of age,

• There are no fingerprints or background checks required,
• There is no training at cost borne by the drinker required,
• There is no concealed six pack/bottle license required
• Convicted felons or those with "Casady's pet misdemeanors" are not prohibitted from owning, posessing or consuming alcohol.

That is what pisses me off

The most law abiding people in Lincoln that go through all of the requirements to obtain a concealed carry license are fordibben from posessing a personal protection tool in the city parks.
Anyone 21 years of age and older no matter segment of the criminal or social element they come from will soon be able to get wasted and do all of the stupid things drunk people do when they get drunk.

So there you have it's okay to go to the Farmers Market and let your dog piss all over other peoples food and property. You will soon be able to go to a city park and get trashed.

You can't however, light up an after dinner cigarette in the smoking section of a restaurant and you are denied the means to protect yourself when you are forcibly accosted by a bunch of drunk felons in the park with broken booze bottles.

Another worthless piece of paper

Recently a local woman had a man whom she had an order of protection against show up at her new place of employment.

Later that evening when she drove through a secluded area on her way home the man following her used his car to bump hers several times in order to get her stopped. It didn't work and on her arrival home other family members notified the appropriate Law Enforcement Agency.

Mutual acquaintance's of both the man and the woman relate that the man has made statements that he wanted to kidnap her so that she can have his baby.

More recently this man again showed up at the womans place of employment. Fearing for her safety the Lincoln Police Department was notified and responded, removing him from inside her place of employment.

Initially the man was secured in a police vehicle while the Officer verified that the order of protection was valid.

It is in fact valid and will remain so until the middle of 2007.

The responding Lincoln Police Officer released the man at the scene.

Yes that is right freed him, let him go, gave him a get out of jail free card.

The reason?

It was her place of employment

The woman has a restraining order the general provisions of which prevent him from contacting her or being within a certain distance of her AND additionally forbids him from being at her place of employment (it specifically names the business at which she used to work).

In the pervue of the Lincoln Police Department since the order of protection does not specifically by name cite her current place of employment they did not arrest him for violating the order of protection.

There you have it, another fine job by Lincolns finest.

This is not a legal technicality and it ain't rocket science folks.

So what the order of protection does not name the current place of employment by name, the general no contact provisions of the order are enforceable at any location.
Just because the place of employment is not mentioned by name DOES NOT make it an "all ye all ye in free zone" for him to stalk and terrify the woman.

It goes beyond the Cop on the street

It is not entirely the responding officers fault. The officer spent considerable time on the cell phone while the man was in the backseat of the patrol car without being handcuffed.

It is likely that the officer was acting on advice and direction from a supervisor, city attorney and/or on call judge.

Ultimately should anything happen to the woman or members of her family before they can go back to court and modify the order of protection, whom ever it was that made the decision to allow this thug to walk will have the victims blood on their hands.

It is doubtful that this menace had the legal presence of mind to know he could not be arrested due to her change in employment, if anything happens to her they will bear some responsibility.

The consensus seems to be that during the nearly hour long presence of the Police Department at the scene our Public Officials went out of their way to concoct a reason however trivial to let the man walk rather than jailing him on an obvious charge of violating an order of protection.

If this doesn't open your eyes about orders of protection and the lack of seriousness given by Law Enforcement then nothing will.

The bottom line is that you can make all the phone calls you want to, when the subject of the order decides to violate it, you are on your own until or if help arrives.

Get this through your head

If you want to survive an encounter with your stalker you must be prepared to protect yourselves. The Police may/will not arrive in time to save you and if they do the chances are that the perpetrator will not be taken into custody anyway.

I am a man and as a woman I don't give two hoots in the forest whether you believe me or not. That is your choice.

If you won't believe me how about one of your own?

Can the Courts Protect You?

Another Restraining Order Fails

This is not the first time I have referred my readers to Zendo Deb the authoress of the Blog TFS Magnum.

Zendo Deb has in her entries compiled stories like this one from all over the United States. If you are not reading her Blog you should be.

The Logan Act; Food for thought

Separation of Powers

For years there has been a faction of the population that has called for a separation between church and state. What the Justice Department really needs to enforce is the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to determine and implement foreign policy.

It is the duty of the Legislative Branch to ratify by advice and consent or not treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch. It is also the duty of the Legislature to fund or not the foreign policies set forth by the Executive Branch.

It is not within the pervue of individual elected Representatives or private citizens to travel to and engage foreign Governments in dialogue or negotiations.

Logan Act

Violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. #953, known as the Logan Act is punishable by fine or up to three years imprisonment or both.

One would think that a person, especially one with many years of seniority, who has been elected to represent and serve the people would be familiar with this law.

Apparently this is not the case.

Recently a number of the Legislative Branches Senior elected Representatives have taken it upon themselves to travel to foreign countries and engage the leadership of those countries in dialogue and/or negotiations.

Lead by Example

United States Citizens by and large should expect that their elected Representatives follow the same laws that their constituencies are subject to, and accept the same consequences when they do not.

There has never been a conviction for violation of the Logan Act.

This is likely due to the position in society of those that have in fact broken the law. Since it generally involves someone of a differing political party or belief, genuine fear of a massive adverse public reaction has probably tempered the enforcement of the Logan Act.

The United States of America is at war.

In order to prevail in this war it must be left to the Executive Branch to determine, implement and negotiate policy with those countries that support the factions that America is at war with.

To do otherwise conveys a potential sign of weakness in the resolve to prosecute that war. When the Executive Branch, of which ever party is undermined by members of the Legislative Branch engaging in separate communications with these governments it sends a mixed message of division to the enemies of the United States. In the past a division such as this has been used to prolong a conflict, thus causing the unnecessary casualties for American Soldiers.

In order to successfully prosecute this, or any war, the United States must speak with one foreign policy voice and only one voice. Constitutionally that voice belongs to the Executive Branch of Government. The Legislative Branch can and should debate the merits of that voice in legislative session.

To do otherwise will only prolong the conflict and/or cause the needless deaths of American Soldiers.

And that is my Food for Thought

Roger Larson gets it wrong

Roger Larson provides commentary for local AM radio station 1400 KLIN. In a recent diatribe Larson disgorges an unusually large amount of bovine excrement even for him.

Hey Larson get your head out of your ass.

It is not the bill of needs.

What part of Right do you not understand?

One would think that at your age you would have a modicum of understanding concerning the Constitution and the Original ten amendments the "Bill of rights".

Roger let me educate you in some basic facts of history.

1. When the Constitution was penned there was no such thing as a "Sportsman" for the purpose of owning a firearm.

Sport hunting became a popular activity thanks primarily to the efforts of Conservationist and President Teddy Roosevelt in the late 1800's. Gee golly huck huck Roger that was 125 years after the Second Amendment was written wasn't it.

2. At that time every male of age (16 or older) was required to acquire at their own expense, maintain, become proficient with and report for duty with a firearm of suitable size and caliber.

Um ... ahhh ... Roger this may come as a shock to your delicate senses but "required to report with a firearm of suitable size and caliber acquired at ones own expense" would be an .... can you say ... assault weapon?

3. The only real organized "target shooting events" were held when the men were required to muster on the village green one Sunday afternoon a month.

4. Hunting was a necessity for survival, if a person didn't hunt his family didn't eat.

Roger put down the Kool-aid. Roger step away from the turd laden punch bowl.

Pay attention closely here Roger;

The Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with target shooting, hunting, or other sports type activities that require the use of firearms.

Taught in School

The purpose of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to serve their town, state and federal government in time of need, but to take up arms against that government should it deteriorate to a tyranny.

Roger do you understand that? I know they were teaching that when you went to school. They were still teaching that when I graduated from school more than 30 years ago.

Because they are

As for the "new" Firearms ownership Rights group you are touting there is a reason that the NRA is calling them a left-wing subversive group.

As for tying them to former President Clinton's attempt at banning some guns, well Roger you did that yourself when you pointed out that this new group makes the statement "No one needs an assault weapon."

The American Hunters and Shooters Association was exposed for the fraud that it is a long time ago Roger. Even a cursory check on the internet will inform even an "anti-gun keyboard kommando" of your ilk that the founders of this organization all come from anti-gun backgrounds.

I am not going to go into in-depth detail about the founders of this group and their backgrounds, that has adaquately been done in the past.

David Zincavage gives us the following admonition Don't be fooled.

American Hunters and Shooters Association head John E. Rosenthal founded the anti-gun group Stop Handgun Violence before he apparently "saw the light".

John Lott had the low down on this group well over a year ago. Before covering their tracks it was revealed that this group was started through the Democratic Leadership Council.

As a final note Larson ends his diatribes with "I'm Roger Larson, and that's the way I see it.

Well Roger I would suspect that if you instituted a cranial/rectal inversion, participated in a 12 step program for Kool-aid addiction and remember what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really means you might see it differently.

The Miller Truth Revisited

Forward

In my previous post I noted that a commenter to a Lincoln Journal Star Editorial seemingly did not understand the true significance of U.S. v. Miller.

Miller has been used by the anti-gun panty-waists for decades to infer that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual Right and that it only applies to the National Guard.

Since I have read and studied the "Miller Decision" extensively I have always failed to see the merit to that claim. At the end of this treatise there is a link to all of the documents that emanated from that case.

After reading it completely I also fail to see how anyone of average intelligence can make the claim that the Court held the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is anything but an individual Right.

In the Beginning

In September 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were re-indicted for transporting a "Sawed-off" shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas in violation of the National Firearms act of 1934.

Although Miller and Layton originally plead guilty, Federal Judge Heartsill Ragon on hearing the case suggested that they change their plea and appointed them representation.

Miller and Laytons attorney filed a demurrer to the indictment holding that the law under which they were charged was according to the Second Amendment unconstitutional. Judge Ragon agreed and so ruled.

The Governments Reacts

The prosecution in the personage of Clinton R. Barry et. al. appealed Judge Ragons decision to the United States Supreme Court. Barry's premise, was based on two parts;

• 1. That the National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibiting possesses of certain weapons without an appropriate tax stamp was Constitutional and,
• 2. That a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon only used by gangsters and desperadoes and had no legitimate use as a military/militia and/or weapon.

Barry also cited English Common laws dating back to the 1300's that forbade "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" as proof that regulation of the "Right to Keep and Bear arms is permissible.

Authors Note: Barrys main assertion on English Common Law holds that "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" assumes that people are/were terrified simply at the sight of such weapons. This was not the case "to the terror of the people" meant that the person possessing a dangerous or unusual weapon was threatening to use said weapon on or against specific individual/s. Possession is not a terroristic act, threatening to actually use it to the harm or death of an other was.

Barry incorrectly avers that pre-existence of the Rights retained by the people in the Second Amendment began only when those Rights were conferred to the people by English Royalty.

Barrys other assertion that the short-barreled shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military/militia use belies the fact that "Sawed-off" shotguns were used with much success by American forces in World-War I.


As was the original demurrer by Miller and Laytons attorney and Barrys subsequent appeal two in part so was the majority remand written by Justice James Clark McReynolds.

Authors Note: Miller and Layton were not represented during oral arguments before the Supreme Court, only the Government was present to make itself heard.

The Supreme Courts Speaks

In the first part as to whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional the Court issued the following statement;

...the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

Authors Note: In plain English they said the act was constitutional in that it did not effect powers reserved to the States.

Concerning part two of the matter before them the majority cited numerous references in early American law;

"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs

....shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

...provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

...that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The Misunderstanding of Miller

Authors Note: This is where Miller has been so often misquoted and misunderstood. The Supreme Court clearly recognized that personal possession and acquisition of military/militia type firearms was not only protected by the Second Amendment, but laws stemming from it, enacted by the states actually required it.

The Court further stated that;


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Authors Note: The Court essentially said that you did not tell us that a short-barreled shotgun is or is not an instrument of the militia and we were not asked to determine such. The importance of that statement is the inference that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. They wrote they could not say the Second Amendment Guaranteed the Right to Keep and Bear that one specific firearm.

Since, as I noted earlier that the "Sawed-off shotgun", "Trench gun", "Ally Sweeper" was so successfully used during World War I it is clearly more than a tool used only by gangsters and deparados avered by Barry. This statement by the High Court implies that had information been provided that the firearm in question has a legitimate purpose as an instrument of the militia they would have "decided" in Millers favor.

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Authors Note: In their "decision" the Supreme Court did "decide" that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was not unconstitutional.

They DID NOT conclude that the Second Amendment was a Collective Right as many claim. They DID remand the case back to Judge Ragons Court to determine whether a "sawed-off shotgun" was a suitable instrument of the militia. Since Miller was not represented in oral argument before the court the Justice's in their opinion appear to have actually taken Millers side. Instead they remanded the case back to Ragon, a highly unusual move considering that Millers attorney was not present when the case was heard. They ordered Judge Ragon to rehear the case and determine whether the short barreled shotgun was an instrument of the militia.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court "decision" on Miller emanated from their October 1938 Term. In April of 1939 prior to the remanded further proceedings by the Supreme Court Miller was murdered.

With Millers death the case died as well and the re-hearing ordered by the Supreme Court never took place.

Authors Note: Had Judge Ragon reheard the case and determined that the firearm in question was in fact a legitimate instrument of the militia on any re-application to the Supreme Court Miller would not be the controversy it is today. This reasonable inference is made based on Judge Ragons actions at the very beginning, as a Judge he advised Miller and Layton to withdraw their guilty pleas and appointed them legal counsel. Judge Ragon did not find Miller or Layton guilty or not guilty, he only ruled on a demurrer that the law under which they were charged was unconstitutional. That left the door open for Clinton Barry to appeal. The Supreme Court simply ordered that, because the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional Miller and Layton be re-charged and taken to trial. Had Judge Ragon held a trial and issued a likely not guilty verdict in the original instance the double jeopardy requirements of the Constitution would have never allowed it to get to the Supreme Court in the first place.

The "determination" that the Supreme Court ordered never took place. In that regard for all intents and purposes Miller is still an open case and until some court specifically rules that a "short barreled shotgun IS or IS NOT a suitable instrument of the military/militia Miller will never have been "decided".

Final note: All bold text is the product of this author for emphasis. I would also like to thank Patrick L. Aultice for much of the information that I relied on for this narrative. Pat has compiled in one place the most complete work on Miller as may exist.

He has published all of the official court documents relating to U.S. v. Miller on the internet and they can be read by anyone in their entirety here.

Regurgitation of a non issue

News must be slow in the Capital city.

Recently the Lincoln Journal Star in an anonymous "editorial" stoked the fires of Concealed Carry again.

The Journal Star and countless others are acting as though Nebraska is the first State to enact such a law. They have their heads in the sand or are conveniently ignoring that this has been the norm in a majority of states for the last 20 to 100 years or more.

It begs the question

Since a majority of the 50 states have already been down this road and there has not ever been the shootouts over parking spaces or blood running in the streets the naysayers predicted, why is it the Journal Star Staff and others think Nebraska will be the exception?

They want my money but they consistently imply that because I own firearms I am, not to be trusted, irresponsible and a menace to society.

What is it that they seem to know about their fellow Cornhuskers that makes them think we are not as responsible and well meaning as the residents of the rest of the states that have had concealed carry laws for years? That is one reason I do not take a home subscription to the LJS.

A third choice

The LJS editorial points out two choices;

But suppose a gun-toter wants to shop in a store that sports the no-guns sign. If a crook can’t tell who’s packing, how can the shopkeeper tell if the citizen takes a gun in anyway? And if the citizen dutifully leaves his gun in his car, what a lucky break for a crook who has only to smash a window to add to his arsenal.

• Choice one - Disobey the sign and carry anyway.
• Choice two - Leave the firearm in the vehicle when entering a posted business.

What LJS fails to mention and should be considered by businesses worried about their bottom line is the third choice that a number of legal Concealed Carriers will opt for;

• Choice three - Refusal to patronize any business that posts a sign.

Choice three is the one I will avail myself of. It is a businesses right to permit whom they wish in their premises and I will repsect that. Respect is a two way street, if a business does not respect my decision to maintain the lawful ability to protect myself and my family I will not spend my money there.

Personally I think that if someone leaves their firearm in a vehicle because a business is posted and that persons firearm is stolen while they are patronizing that business then the owners/managers of that business should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm. In the least they should be able to be sued in civil court by the victims of crimes committed with a firearm that was stolen from their parking lot.

In its infinite wisdom the LJS points out;

The fact that most law-enforcement agencies have distanced themselves from the law should tell us something about its potential for danger.

Danger?? Show me the danger

Police administrations distance themselves from laws like this because it will effect their bottom line budget. Every year police administrations request additional funds to bolster their budgets under the pretense of protecting the public. For years police administrators have deluded the public into thinking they (the police department) are the sole responsibility for the citizens safety. The only danger is to their bottom line.

To many Sheeple in this country have been brainwashed into thinking that the Police are suppose to be at their beck and call for any little snit that they find themselves in.

News flash Sheeple;

Police agencies are under no legal obligation to protect you as an individual.

Police agencies exist to serve the public as a whole i.e. clearing traffic accidents, quelling riots or public disturbances, and investigating crimes.

Police Officers for the most part can not prevent crimes. Rarely are police officers at the scene of a crime before or as it is happening. For the most part they (through no fault of their own) show up after the fact.

Yes they will put out an all points for your SUV that was hijacked from your wife with your 18 month old baby in the back. Yes they will see that your daughter gets a rape kit and adequate medical attention when they find her bruised body in a back alley. Yes they will see that you get to the hospital when a couple of thugs rough you up and take your wallet because "you stayed at Tulley's Bar too long again".

The cold hard fact is when you need them most they won't be there. For those critical moments you are on your own, what you do may mean life or death.

Oh and if you can get a call through and they don't show up in your definition of a timely manner or your call slips through the cracks and they don't show at all?

Don't even think about suing them.

That has been tried before countless times in countless states and the result has always been the same;

Police Officers are under no legal obligation to protect citizens as individuals only society as a whole.

The only people the police are by law required to protect is those that they have a "special relationship" with. A 'special relationship" is generally held to be a person "in custody".

No an Order of Protection does not qualify as a "special relationship".

Try this;

Call the local police department and tell them a person you have an order against just called you and said they are on their way over to kill you.

The response will generally be something to the effect of;

"We're sorry Mr/Mrs Citizen but we can't do anything until the person actually shows up at your residence. Call us back when he/she gets there."

Want to know how many 911 recordings there are where the caller was assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered on tape while the police were "in route"?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not one single Police Officer I know that won't put his or her life on the line to come to your aid. I know for a fact that they do it because it is in their heart and not their bank account. For what they do Peace Officers have an under paid and under appreciated lot in life.

The way it is

What the average citizen need to understand is that no matter how much police officers may want to be they can not be there when you are assaulted, robbed, raped or worse. They just have no way of knowing your in trouble until the incident is over and then all they can do is respond and help pick up the pieces. It is a fact of life, deal with it.

US v. Miller

One the commenter's to the "editorial" on-line referenced US v. Miller. Miller the most misunderstood actions ever taken by the US Supreme Court. It is touted as the "Miller Decision" and I can deduce that the commenter has never actually read it. In Miller the Supreme Court decided nothing. That's right zip, zilch, nada, nothing.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) remanded the case back to the lower court because it wasn't given notice that a "short-barreled shotgun was firearm in use by the Militia. By it's own writing if SCOTUS had been given notice that such a firearm was in use by the military they would have decided in Millers favor.

After it was remanded back to the lower court and before further action could be taken in his defense Miller died.

Those of you that so handily quote Miller in error should do yourselves the favor of reading it instead of relying on what somebody else tells them it means. Then at least you won't appear to be so ignorant when you open your mouth and remove all doubt.