Interesting

Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers

Passed unanimously by both houses and signed by the Governor. The only other state to do this thus far is TN.

Alaska Good Samaritan Law

The discussion of what to include in a first aid kit prompted me to look at the AK Good Samaritan Law.

Alaska Statutes.

Title 9. Code of Civil Procedure

Chapter 65. Actions, Immunities, Defenses, and Duties

Section 90. Civil Liability For Emergency Aid.

AS 09.65.090. Civil Liability For Emergency Aid.

(a) A person at a hospital or any other location who renders emergency care or emergency counseling to an injured, ill, or emotionally distraught person who reasonably appears to the person rendering the aid to be in immediate need of emergency aid in order to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid.

(b) A member of an organization that exists for the purpose of providing emergency services is not liable for civil damages for injury to a person that results from an act or omission in providing first aid, search, rescue, or other emergency services to the person, regardless of whether the member is under a preexisting duty to render assistance, if the member provided the service while acting as a volunteer member of the organization; in this subsection, "volunteer" means a person who is paid not more than $10 a day and a total of not more than $500 a year, not including ski lift tickets and reimbursement for expenses actually incurred, for providing emergency services.

(c) The immunity provided under (b) of this section does not apply to civil damages that result from providing or attempting to provide any of the following advanced life support techniques unless the person who provided them was authorized by law to provide them:

(1) manual electric cardiac defibrillation;

(2) administration of antiarrhythmic agents;

(3) intravenous therapy;

(4) intramuscular therapy; or

(5) use of endotracheal intubation devices.

(d) This section does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.

(e) [Repealed, Sec. 2 ch 92 SLA 2003].

(f) [Repealed, Sec. 2 ch 92 SLA 2003].

So, bottom line, it looks like AK has a liberal statue on providing first aid compared to some other states. Which makes sense given how rural and remote a lot of the state is.

Section D requires you to avoid reckless misconduct, which is probably the easiest trap to fall into provided that you avoid the laundry list in section C. From a casual reading of Good Samaritan Law, it looks like you need to meet a few guidelines.

• Imminent Peril. Only render aid if the victim is in imminent peril. An example given would be pulling someone from a car wreck when there is no fire, and no compelling reason to remove them from the car.
• Level of Training. Act in accordance with your level of training.
• Good Faith. Act in good faith without expectation of compensation.

Based on this reading, I think some of hte items that I wasn't sure about would be legit.

Quik-Clot is in widespread civilian usage now. A NY paramedic received an award for saving a life with it. DHS issues it to federal agencies. Many state and local agencies that can afford it stock these new dressings. It saves lives.

NPAs are also in common civilian usage. They're easy to learn how to use and I have my training certificate to show that I know what I'm doing.

So, I think both of those items can be included in the kit. Are they first resort treatment? Probably not. Is it good to have them and never need them? Absolutely.

N.B. - I am not a lawyer and do not provide legal advice.

Interesting Open Carry Article

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/jul/15/cover/

An interesting article on open carry from Kalifornia. Its actually neutral to slightly positive.

National CCW Reciprocity

Snowflakes in Hell just reported on a new rider that bodes well for nationwide CCW reciprocity.

For us Alaskans, that's a good thing. It allows us to travel "outside" without fear of violating some other state's arcane or byzantine law simply for possessing a defensive firearm. Of course, still research before you go to ensure you don't enter a bank, restaurant, or other locally prohibited place. This is especially big for military personnel who are stationed outside the state.

Sen Murkowski has a NRA "A" rating, so I don' t think we need to worry about her. The NRA wrote:

Lisa Murkowski—an Alaskan by both birth and belief—has distinguished herself as a reliable and trustworthy friend of law-abiding firearms owners. She has earned an “A” rating from NRA-PVF...
In fact, Sen. Murkowski is exactly the kind of person we need in Washington.

However, I do suggest writing Sen Begich and asking him to support Senate Amendment No. 1618 to the Defense Appropriations Bill S.1390. He's got an A rating as well and I think he's pretty safe, but it doesn't hurt to remind our Senators in Blue that the voters are watching and it may give him some influence within the party ("Hey, we need to keep pushing the RKBA because otherwise our constituents will roast us!").

I'd prefer to see widespread Vermont/AK style carry, but I don't think paragraph 2 allows that... Or does it?

(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–...

(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–...

The method described in paragraph 1 says that if you have a photo ID and a CCW license issued by the state, then you're good. Para 2 says that if you're allowed to carry "otherwise than as described" then you're also good. I wonder if this includes VT/AK style carry or if its really for cops, etc.

On one hand this is bad as it corrals everyone into nationwide licensing (i.e., identifying all gun owners who feel strongly about the issue and regularly carry), but on a practical level this is very good for the RKBA. Its definitely worth supporting.

Goo From Outerspace?

http://www.adn.com/2835/story/864687.html

Really weird...

Finances Part II

Some links that relate to my discussion here. Again, I'm not an economist, and I'm sorry for spinning things away from our local AK focus, but the two quotes seemed relevant.

The director of the Congressional Budget Office thinks that spending is out of control.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.

Joe Biden thinks we're not spending enough:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

I agree with VP Biden -- you need to spend money to make money. But like I point out in my earlier post, there's Good Spending (investments) and Bad Spending. If you invest $1 and get back $0.50, then pouring more money in is not going to help anything. In fact, it will make things worse. It seems to me that the Dems are arguing that spending taxpayer dollars on healthcare will have returns greater than $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Is that true? Possible, but doubtful. If it were that profitable then some company would already be providing free healthcare to poor, obese smokers.

I do want to see how VP Biden balances his checkbook, however.

Out of State - Guns in Chicago

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/4.Killed.At.2.1088059.html

As you may know, handguns are illegal in Chicago. In that case, how do bad people somehow manage to get guns (and knives) to cause "bloodbaths"?

Also, why is it that when 4 are killed and 8 are wounded due to (disconnected, unrelated) violence in a major city, its a bloodbath, when many times that number of people die in traffic accidents every day?

Keeping Guns Away from Terrorists, aka, HR 2159

"H.R. 2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009."

I was vaguely hopeful that when the Democrats got elected, they might reinstate some of the civil liberties that had been stripped away during the Bush administration. Powerful tools were created very quickly (some with questionable legality...) due to the fear and panic following 9/11. Many of these tools impose on the rights and freedoms that we as Americans enjoy.

Sadly, it looks like the Dems rather enjoy those tools now that they are in power, and they will use them to push their own agenda now.

TERROR WATCHLISTING

I have been personally impacted by these as I'm on the "No Fly" terror watchlist. This means that every time I fly, I must show up early. I endure extra scrutiny at check in, and I have to wait on line to check in at the counter -- I cannot use the internet or a kiosk. The agent must call someone to get permission for me to fly, and sometimes they don't know the procedure so I have to ask for a manager while enduring their fearful glare. If the phone or database is out, then you will miss your flight. I almost always get "randomly selected" for extra security screening, which means I get a patdown search at the TSA checkpoint and my bags are rooted through. When I flew in Philadelphia with automatic weapons to get to my deployment, even though I was in full uniform, there was almost PSH.

As a note, I'm a military member, deployed to Afghanistan to kill Taliban/AQ types and To Keep America Safe (rah rah!). I guess its some paperwork error or case of mistaken identity? It started under the Bush administration so I guess its not because Janet Napolitano thinks I'm a dangerous extremist. I am not the only one that has had trouble -- Sen Ted Kennedy has been hassled, former AK Senator Ted Stevens' wife had trouble, my state Representative Don Young had trouble, marines returning from the sandbox have been listed, etc etc.

Unfortunately, there is no way to get off the watchlist. DHS and TSA cannot confirm if you are on the list because the list is classified. I only know because I interrogated an airline agent one day and got her to spill the CAPPS acronym. DHS has a process called "TRIP" that allows you to send them all sorts of personal documents over an unsecure website so that they can make it easier to differentiate you from the Bad People. Of course, this process is useless as (A) there's no way to know that they've actually done anything and hold them accountable and (B) it takes a minimum of 30 days to even acknowledge that you've sent them something, much less actually processed it.

As someone who has worked in the IC, I understand the pressures on watchlisting: you get rewarded for making the list bigger, not more accurate. When in doubt, you add the person to the list because you don't wnat to risk missing anyone -- there's an "us or them" mentality and you want to protect your team. You don't give a shit about reviewing it for accuracy because there's no way to hold people accountable for such a nebulous and judgment prone process. I give in to those pressures here in Afghanistan and I am a relatively educated, conscientious individual!

So, this should show that the watchlist may be a useful tool for conducting investigations or tracking patterns of behavior (which may or may not be a fourth amendment issue...) but it is not a good one for denying fundamental rights. There is no due process. The attorney general (or designee -- usually an intel agency or FBI) can put you on the list for any reason, even just an analyst having a funny feeling. There's some indication that the Bush administration abused this by putting domestic political opponents on the list, so clearly, abuse is potentially part of the system.

THE LAW: HR 2159

HR 2159 is an odious piece of legislation. Go read it yourself if you don't believe me. Here's some choice bits.

First, we'll arbitrarily limit transfers because of a FutureCrime you may commit::

The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’;

Next, this bit allows the AG to arbitrarily deny Federal Firearms Licenses because of a FutureCrime you may commit:

‘(H) The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

This part allows the AG to keep his reasons a secret, and also prevents you from confronting the witnesses and evidence against you:

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting ‘, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: ‘With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

This bit is the process for challenging your denial. Basically, the government must meet the low standard of "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, its more likely than not that your watchlisting was correct; 51% of the evidence presented in redacted documents indicates that you may be naughty in the future).

‘(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

PSH

To push this legislation, there is PSH over the so-called "Terror Gap." Sen Lautenberg seems to have coined this phrase:

“The special interest gun lobby has so twisted our nation’s laws that the rights of terrorists are placed above the safety of everyday Americans. The current law simply defies common sense. This new report is proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities. This ‘terror gap’ has been open too long and our national security demands that we shut it down,” Sen. Lautenberg said.

Now, first off, as far as I'm aware, the phrase "terror gap" refers to a "missile gap" and "bomber gap" back in the Cold War. These were used as justifications to justify big US defense spending. They implied that the Russians had more and better weapons than us, so we had to build bigger nukes to keep up. The logical implication would be that terrorists are getting very scary, and that we need to be scarier. I guess maybe he means that the terrorists are well armed and that we need to arm ourselves to a greater degree to keep up -- we should be letting citizens CCW to counter Mumbai-style attacks, and pilots should be armed. We certainly didn't try to solve the mythical cold war gaps by disarming Russians! Except, Lautenberg does think we can disarm terrorists (as I recall, no firearms were involved in 9/11... hrm...).

I think he uses the term "Gap" to stir up emotional feelings in Boomers who remember the Cold War and how scary it was. Note the close placement to fuzzy and predictable line about families and communities (its for the kids, honest!). Clearly he's aiming at middle-aged types with this rhetoric. Its sophistry.

Meanwhile, the Brady campaign is also experiencing PSH (scariest bits included in color-coded brown font):

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and U.S. Representatives Peter T. King (R-NY) have introduced common sense legislation to deny firearms and explosives to terrorists. Currently, federal authorities cannot stop sales of guns — including military-style assault weapons — by dealers to known or suspected terrorists. This gap in the law threatens our nation's safety.

A new GAO report finds that, from February 2004 to February 2009, there were 963 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist attempted to buy a gun. In 90 percent of those cases — a total of 865 times — they were cleared to proceed with that purchase. One of those cases involved the purchase of explosives.

Congress must pass the Terror Gap bill to stop known or suspected terrorists from buying guns.

I'd like to dissect this statement briefly. First, the bogus claim that the feds can't stop sales of firearms to terrorists. If you're a KNOWN terrorist, you're a felon. And if you're a felon, then you can't legally buy a gun. Making illegal things illegalar will not stop a determined criminal or terrorist from buying the item, well, illegally! If you're a SUSPECTED terrorist, then you're *guess what* innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not innocent until the attorney general decides you're not. Plus, to say that everyone on the terror watchlist is a suspected terrorist is a stretch (unless the Brady Bunch are calling Sen Ted Kennedy a suspected terrorist).

Next, we get the scary line about military-style assault weapons. Also, bogus. You can't buy an M16 or M4 or AK47 on the civilian market (at least not without a shitload of paperwork from the ATF to get a Class III license). They are highly regulated fully automatic weapons. The broad definition of assault weapon includes anything that has ever been used by any military anywhere or that looks scary. Note that terrorists don't need these weapons in order to commit acts of terror: the box cutters used on 9/11 worked just fine. They're not even favored by criminals for acts of crime. Show me any terror attacks in the US where terrorists have used "Assault Weapons." In fact, show me how many terror attacks in the US used firearms at all.

Finally, the scary looking statistics. How many people on the terror watchlist try to fly every day? How many are allowed to fly? I bet its a scarily high number! What the statistic shows is that over 90% of the people on the watchlist who try to buy guns are not felons, wife beaters, insane, otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm, or "false positives" who are later approved and allowed to buy.

The New York Times opines:

Congress should be dealing with the national embarrassment that individuals barred from airlines on the terrorist watch list are free to shop for firearms. Senator Frank Lautenberg has a proposal to let the attorney general block this insanity. Security-minded Americans, however, better not count on action by this timorous Congress.

So, clearly, I am insane, according to the New York Times, because I oppose this "common sense" legislation. Also, even though I am in Afghanistan killing real terrorists to keep America safe, apparently I'm not a Security-Minded American.

A COMMONSENSE OUTCOME

If known or suspected terrorists cannot be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights, why do we allow them to assemble in public, to write letters to the editor, or to radicalize others in places of worship? Why do we allow these dangerous threats to our society to enjoy sanctuary under our own noses -- the police should be allowed to search terrorist's homes, papers, and persons at any time, without a warrant. Why do we extend terrorists the benefit of fifth amendment protections like jury trial and the right to confront witnesses against them? That would endanger sensitive classified information.

If you oppose these measures, you must be an insane suspected terrorist (apparently like me!). You must not want to keep our families and communities safe.

I think its scary just how many people actually sign on board to these draconian ideas, though. It shows that fear and emotional arguments work. It makes me wonder if people like Sen Lautenberg are so naive and foolish to think that their legislation would actually be effective, or if they're just cynical and seizing on people's fears to get any sort of legislation passed that furthers their agenda. If such foolishness and sophistry weren't so insidiously dangerous for our Constitutional Republic, for liberty, and for our personal safety, it'd be comical.

REVIEW: Patriots, a Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse

Rawles, James Wesley. Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. Berkely: Ulyesses Press, 2009.



BLUF: Doesn't live up to the hype; poor flow, stilted dialogue, and marginal story hamstring a book that contains some good information and lessons learned.

Some of you may have read about Mr. Rawles in some main stream media reports about how survivalism is going "mainstream." Rawles runs a blog oriented towards survival issues. He's also written a novel, Patriots, which is the end result of over a decade of writing.

I had read some of the MSM reports, so when Amazon suggested I order Patriots, and when I saw that it was very highly recommended by the peer reviews, I figured "Why not?" I needed some light fiction reading anyways and it was a cheap paperback.

The back cover claims that "Patriots is a thrilling narrative depicting fictional characters... Reading this compelling, fast-paced novel could one day mean the difference between life and death." I'm not sure that it lives up to the moniker or the hype. In summary, the book traces a group of survival-oriented individuals at their retreat following a major economic downturn that leads to the collapse of Western society.

First, the bad. My biggest issue with this book was its LACK of thrilling narrative. The dialogue is wooden and monotonous. I found the characters to be shallow and they didn't grip me in any emotional way for the most part. I even had trouble keeping names straight. Even after the death of a main character, I didn't feel much empathic connection. In another example, one of the characters -- the group's medic -- gives birth and manages to give a scholarly medical discourse throughout the process.

The novel wasn't very "readable," either. While technically accurate, many of the sections felt like monologues where the characters are reading from a field manual. I'm comfortable with military terminology but even I found the use of acronyms like "LP/OP" (listening post/observation post, for the uninitiated) to be unwieldy. I would have preferred a smoother flowing synonym like, "lookout" or "watchpost." The chapter on radio communications was particularly egregious in these regards.

Next, the good. Despite the wooden narrative, it was a pretty quick read. I plowed through in a few hours, in part because the chapters you're not interested in are easily skimmable -- you won't miss any critical character development, I promise. Enough back handed compliments.

There were some genuinely good parts. Rawles has an Army MI background and occasionally he hits wry military humor spot on. "I'm afraid we are used to talking in 'acronese' around here, and not the Air Force dialect you're used to" (280) -- being an Air Force guy stranded among the Army, oh, so true.

I also honestly enjoyed the chapter on a "Troy Barter Faire" (chapter 14 I believe). The scenes were vivid, the dialogue not as stilted, and the images compelling. It really was a nicely painted picture of the rebuilding of civil society after a collapse, and I feel like there was a different editor here, or perhaps it was written at a different time. Additionally, Rawles incorporates a lot of gouge into a format that's more readable than a field manual. It was interesting reading about different types of equipment and techniques. The only downside is that as its a novel, there is little reference material to tell you where those reccomendations come from.

On an aesthetic note, I liked many of the quotes that prefaced chapters. They were often thoughtful and well-selected.

Now, the ugly. First, I groaned when the Dreaded UN Blue Hat invasion force showed up. Of course, its comically inept (ok, that part might be true based on what I've seen in Afghanistan... ISAF = I Suck At Fighting). But, did he really have to go there? Really? Take off the tin foil hat. Including these themes just alienated a significant part of your potential readership, and it makes it hard to give this book as a gift or even to have it around lest someone have an attack of the vapors and call the SPLC.

Additionally, I found the treatment of minorites, especially Hispanics, to be borderline offensive. Rawles is trying to show that he and his characters are open minded and tolerant. But introducing a hispanic character named Blanca whose dialogue is written with a strong and pidgin accent is just tawdry. To his credit, he does a good, thoughtful job integrating an African American character, but Blanca is just... ugh. There's a strong smack of "Token Minority Added for Balance."

Next, Rawles is unabashadly Christian. Now, that's ok. No beef here. He even has a sop to Jews by including a major Jewish character in a positive light. But still, it is likely to make some people feel excluded and turned off. Additionally, while I found Rawle's version of Christinianity to be focused on the more positive aspects of the faith such as charity, its one more thing for the SPLC to get spun up over (Gotta worry about those Christian Identity extremists ya know). I would have preferred it if Rawles had included a few more diverse but moral characters other than a token Jew.

One final ugly point is the extreme lack of realism in some parts. Normally in a fictional novel, I have no problem with this, but given that the book tries to be highly factual... yeah. For example, the group assaults a town and clears it of a rapacious biker gang. They go house to house in CQB and take out all the bad guys with no friendly losses. Yeah... Not too likely. CQB is risky, especially for the marginally trained and inexperienced. House clearing is hard. I can understand ambushing bad guys from a concealed position with fire superiorty and having it turn out well, but taking the offensive and clearing out dozens of goblins -- eh. This sort of thing repeats itself a few other times, and it hurts Rawle's credibility at best and could get someone killed doing something stupid at worst.

Overall Rating: 2. I can't honestly reccomend Patriots to everyone. Its cheap, and its an ok read, but really has some significant flaws.

Carry Methods

Thus far I've tried the following carry methods for my Beretta 92FS (aka M9). In general, they're open carry, but I've been thinking about concealability.

Shoulder Holster. I've tried a few holsters; nice Galcos for a few minutes, and cheaper haji-holsters for all day. I'm not a big fan. The weight is not perfectly balanced and that hurts after a period of time. Even when you do try to balance out the weight, I find my neck and shoulders hurt after a day of wear. I also don't like that it takes a bit to put on properly without twisting straps, although you can throw it on in a hurry if necessary if you don't mind about the mags being twisted up some.

However, I do have my shoulder rig set up as my "bump in the night" go-and-grab. The first time I ran to the bunker clutching my Blackhawk tactical thigh drop rig, I realized that my boxers have no belt loops to attach it too. Ooops. So, I started loading up the shoulder rig at night. Its easy to grab in a hurry. I can also use one of the magazine pouches for a light, which is good. Its also good in a car, but when I drive here, I prefer my...

Blackhawk Tactical Thigh Drop. This one is good. I really like the serpa retention system -- Its cool and effective. You can clip an extra mag right onto the carrier. The only downsides are that I find it chafes a bit after a full day of wear, and its not concealed at all. I wouldn't want to go hiking with it. Another downside is that its easy to see if you're in condition 4 (no magazine loaded) or something else (magazine loaded). Which can get ISAF MPs uppity.

Outside the Waist Band. This is my favorite for daily carry. I went through a few cheap locally sold holsters before I found one that would hold up, but as I said, they're cheap. I've borrowed a kydex one that would hold up much better. Tucking the pistol at 4:00 and a double mag pouches at 8:00 or 11:00 works great. Its nice for being low-key below the radars of the ISAF MPs.

Finances

Recent economic news has me really depressed.

It looks like the deficit for this year will be around two trillion dollars. That's a lot of money. The current US deficit is around 11.5 trillion dollars, so its a 20% increase in just one year. That's $40K per capita, or about 75% of GDP. In absolute terms, we have the most debt, but in relative terms, we're now in the middle of the industrialized world as far as percentage of GDP goes.

Now, deficit spending is good in some cases. Just like for an individual, if borrowing money helps you develop the economy, its good. For example, an individual's student loads are justifiable, just like government investment in infastructure. Likewise, self-defense or moderating a recession can be legitimate expenditures. But we're running major deficits just to keep the store open.

There are only a few ways to deal with this that I can see. Now, I'm not an economist; I'm just a liberal arts major that took Econ 101 a few years ago. But, I know how to balance a checkbook.

1) Continue to run up deficits. This works so long as US dollars are the best option compared to other options (so, if, say, Euros and Yen are shittier than dollars, then dollars still look pretty good as a reserve currency). Problem: This may require us to pay higher interest rates though to creditors as our credit-rating slips due to massive debt.
2) Grow the economy. If you can make GDP increase, then debt as a % of GDP decreases. Its better to owe someone $20 and have $200, than to owe someone $0 and have $50. Problem: Hard to do, hard to predict, and there's the temptation to spend everything during boom cycles and save nothing.
3) Cut spending. Problem: This would be hard. If you eliminated the entire defense department overnight, it would not balance the budget. And its very unpopular to cut welfare programs, which is what you need to do to talk about big money.
4) Raise taxes. Problem: Not so popular, politically. Also, perhaps contrary with trying to grow the economy.
5) Print more money. Problem: inflation.
5b) Repudiate the debt. Problem: hyperinflation.
6) Pray and hope. Good luck with that. Its working great in California!

Complicating this bleak scenario is the prospect for social security's future. It looks like Social Security will need to start drawing on its trust fund in 2018ish. The trust fund is a bunch of money saved during years of surplus. Except, congress has already spent this money. The trust fund is full of IOUs. Hrm. That IOU thing is working out great for California, by the way. So, basically, social security will start to cash in loans that the feds have made. That may put a lot of pressure on the whole system with perhaps unpredictable consequences.

Even if spending all the IOUs works out ok, then social security still runs out of even those in 2041-2052. Hrm, that's when I'll be starting to think about retirement. See why I think of my 12% social security tax as a charitable donation?

I see us as having about 10 years to implement some solutions before that huge gaping social security hole is upon us. So, I'm concerned about the ongoing orgy of federal spending.

Sure, saving UAW jobs is good. Cost: $130 billion+
Obama's Healthcare plan: Projected $1.6 trillion over our critical 10 year window
War in Afghanistan & Iraq: Probably another trillion over the next 10 years
Obama's Global Warming Plan: Estimates vary, but perhaps $0.5-3 trillion over 10 years

I'm not even touching TARP as I don't think anyone really understands it. And this doesn't touch all the little programs and welfare projects and pork spending that eventually adds up ("A billion here, a billion there, eventually you're talking about real money").

Also bear in mind -- how many major projects, especially government projects, come in under budget?

The question is, what does this spending get us? Will it build infastructure that generates economic activity? Will it better educate our workforce and improve our human capital? Will it create jobs and grow the economy? Will it create sustainable growth that doesn't require permanent taxpayer life support to maintain?

Unlike California's meltdown, a federal debt crisis will hit everyone. States are addicted to federal money for schools, highways, welfare, and medical care. So are individual people (try cutting social security!). If the value of the dollar is unstable, or if we see hyperinflation or debt repudiation, then the entire national or global economy can come crashing down -- and we think this recession is bad!

I think in this vital 10 year window, we, as a nation, need to look carefully at the checkbook. We need to start thinking about implementing some real solutions. I don't know what the fix is. I think we need to try lots of things. We'll need to cut spending. We'll need to grow the economy. We need to simplify the tax code and reduce waste in tax collection. We may need to increase taxes or eliminate loopholes that don't create economic growth. We may need to accept some inflation, as long as its equal to other country's inflation so that our dollars aren't worthless.

If we don't then economic problems will become social problems. I think people will be upset if their social security checks get cut, or if their taxes double, if inflation hits 10%, or 20%, or 50%. I would like to see some real, serious, genuine discussions about how to manage our national debt in a transparent manner. We have a decade to make wise choices, but I'm afraid that we'll pork it away. I doubt either party will want to do a 180 and control their addiction to spending money.

Oh Canda: Grizzly Bear > Child

Here's an interesting story about Man vs. Wild in Canada in 2008. In a nutshell, a Canadian outdoorsmen, Joe Lucas, was out with his 13 year old son when an angry mama bear charged them. He dropped the bear with a firearm at around 16 yards. That sounds far away, but consider that a bear can top 30 MPH. That's FAST. Consider that a person can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds (the time to draw and fire, if you're a pretty good police officer). A bear can cover that distance much faster.

He then hiked three hours back to his vehicle to get a charged phone to notify the authorities. Ok, I'm tracking thus far.

Mr. Lucas was charged with six crimes, each carrying a $100,000 fine.

WTF???

"They're wanting me to become accountable for killing that bear," he said. "I wonder who would be accountable if my son was dead or I was dead?"

The executive director of Defenders of Wildlife Canada commented at the time, "It seems . . . this person could have taken a number of alternate actions to protect his safety, and shooting the bear was unnecessary," Pissot said. I'm not exactly sure what those measures would have been.

Let's talk prevention first. This guy was hiking on a hunting trip, so it wasn't a camp with smellables. We have a joke in AK about bear bells -- how do you know what kind of bear scat that is? If there's bells in it, then its from a grizz! Now of course, making noise and letting the critters know that you are there is good. Lucas was with his kid though, so there was probably some noise.

Ok, so, prevention has failed. For whatever reason, a grizzly bear mama is charging you. What are your options? You can: (A) shoot it, (B) spray it (if you have bear mace), (C) hope it is a bluff charge and will run away, or (D) try to fight back with your bare hands or play dead once its on you. A & B are clearly preferable to the latter options. If I'm out hunting, and have my gun in my hands, I'm shooting it. I think there will be some adrenaline pumping. It is easier to pull the trigger than to drop the gun, draw the bear spray, unlock the bear spray, and shoot the bear spray. So sure, pepper spray may be a better option, but a powerful firearm is a good enough option.

So, I'd really like to hear what the alternate actions would be. There's really not that many choices. And if Mr. Lucas had been disarmed, he would have lost an effective option that worked, narrowing the choices even more. Us humans are tool-using, which is what seperates us from a monkey that fell out of the tree. Out in the wild, if you decide to not use tools, you're just another monkey, and some bigger animal will eat you.

It took over a year and a half to get to a final verdict in the case, which was released in April of this year. The state experts testified that the charging grizzly bear was "not being aggressive." "From what I have heard today, I would not consider it an aggressive bear," Gibeau, a state carnivore specialist, testified. Luckily, the judge, who was familiar with brown bears, disagreed.

"I find in my experience of living in the mountains, bears are dangerous and unpredictable animals," said the judge. "In my view, Mr. Lucas properly came to view that bear as a danger."

I'm all for preserving wildlife, opposing poachers, and protecting the environment. Most outdoorsy people are. But if I have to kill a bear to protect a child, I will. I'd kill 10 bears, or a 100 bears. Its too bad that Mr. Lucas had to deal with being charged with serious crimes for a year and a half, and that he likely has some expensive legal fees.

The thing that gets me are the comments on the articles. A lot of people are really upset about the verdict. Some even suggest that Mr. Lucas conspired with his son to go out and commit a Bear-Murder -- the perfect crime.

Of course, this is Canada, where armed self-defense is pretty much criminalized. You can't even use some pepper sprays against other people in self-defense there, much less a gun. Thank God we're in the USA.

Guns: Semiauto Selections

In a previous post, I gave my initial thoughts on a battery. Part of that is a brace of semiauto pistols (preferably one of which is compact, and one of which is full size) plus a pistol caliber carbine (PCC).

These are the options I've come up with based on my research. Note that this is a "preview," not a "review." I don't own these guns and unless noted I haven't fired or handled them. At my current location I'm kind of limited in selection. But, maybe it will save you some time

My goal here is to give an overview of the "families." I've split them into families based on magazine interchangeability. Obviously if this isn't as much of a factor for you, feel free to mix and match. In future posts I'll explore them more in depth and add links to each page so you can click & cruise.

For now I'll assume a common caliber; most of the time these are available in multiple calibers with slightly different model numbers. Everything is listed in alphabetical order.

Beretta M9/92
Available in: 9MM or maybe .40 SW
Compact: Beretta 9000 (with rare magazine adapter for each 92 mag -- may not work with 96/.40 SW mags)
Full-Size: Beretta 92/96 (or variant -- 92 Centurion, for example)
Carbine: Kel-Tec Sub2000 (9mm or .40 SW)
Carbine: Beretta Cx4

Beretta/Stoeger Cougar 8000
Available in: 9MM or maybe .40 SW
Compact: Maybe Cougar 8000L Type P (9mm only)
Full-Size: Cougar 8000
Carbine: Beretta Cx4
As a note: The old Berettas were made in 9mm, .40 SW, .357 SIG, and .45 ACP. Beretta has moved the line to Stoeger, a subsidiary in Turkey. Stoeger is only making full size 9mm and .40 SW models at this time.

Beretta Storm
Available in: 9MM or .40 SW; .357 SIG and .45 ACP planned
Compact: Beretta Px4SC
Full-Size: Beretta Px4
Carbine: Beretta Cx4

Browning Style Magazine
Available in: 9MM or .40 SW
Compact: Unknown
Full-Size: S&W 59 (9mm) or S&W 4006 (.40 SW)
Carbine: Kel-Tec Sub2000 (9mm or .40 SW)
Carbine: Marlin Camp Carbine 9 (9mm)

Colt 1911
Available in: .45 ACP
Compact: Any Colt 1911 style
Full-Size: Any Colt 1911 style
Carbine: Marlin Camp Carbine .45

Hi-Point
Available in: .40 SW only
Compact: Nada -- need to look at something else
Full-Size: Hi Point .40 SW
Carbine: HiPoint 4095

Glock
Available in: 9MM, .40 SW, or .45 ACP
Compact: Glock 19
Full-Size: Glock 17
Carbine: Olympic Arms AR-15 (9mm or .40 SW only)
Carbine: Kel-Tec Sub2000 (9mm or .40 SW only)
Carbine: TDI Vector V (.45 ACP only)

Ruger
Available in: 9MM or .40 SW
Compact: Ruger P93 (9mm)
Full-Size: Ruger P9 (9mm) or P91 (.40 SW)
Carbine: Ruger PC9 (9mm) or PC4 (.40 SW)

Sig
Available in: 9MM or .40 SW
Compact: Sig 228
Full-Size: Sig 226
Carbine: Kel Tec Sub2000 (9 mm or .40 SW)

Gun Free Zones

I strongly dislike gun free zones as they are usually implemented. Criminals, by definition, ignore and break laws. If someone is going to break the law against robbery, rape, aggravated assault, murder, etc, what makes us think that they will care too much about a "gun free" zone? All that a gun free zone does is disarm law abiding civilians and turn law abiding civilians who are ignorant of the law into felons (for example, driving too close to a school while packing in some states is a no-no).

A gun free zone is not a magic forcefield that instantly stops all guns from entering. As we see over and over again, criminals enter gun free areas for killing sprees, whether it be the Columbine shootings, the VA Tech massacre, or the holocaust museum.

On one hand, I think that if the government promulgates a law that forbids people from protecting themselves, then the government should be responsible for ensuring people's safety. What would that mean?

1) GETTING THERE AND BACK: You need a safe way to get from home, work, or other reasonable places to the Gun Free Zone. If this is not a secure, sanitized area then it would be reasonable to allow you to be armed. Thus, outside the Gun Free Zone, you need to have a place where people can secure their weapons. This locker room area MUST be under armed guard and surveillance as it would be a lucrative target for thieves. If nothing else, citizens must be allowed to secure weapons in their cars outside the Gun Free Zone.

2) SANITARY AREA: An entry control point (ECP) must be set up and a 100% search of persons and belongings made to exclude all firearms. This would be like a TSA checkpoint at the airport.

3) INSTANT POLICE RESPONSE: A highly skilled shooter can draw and fire in less than a second. In order to provide the same level of protection to me that I can provide to myself, the police must be able to respond INSTANTLY. That means that there needs to be a heavy police presence and significant surveillance capability of the entire facility. While a <1>

Cost. This is expensive. Imagine how many police officers you'd need to pay to have <1>

Fourth Amendment. The 4th amendment gives us the right to be secure in our persons, possessions, papers, etc against unreasonable search and seizure. If places where we have to go are gun free and subject to mandatory searches at the ECP, then how do we avoid being searched every time we enter such a place? What would happen if you were carrying "subversive literature," prescription drugs, or any other questionable item at such a checkpoint? I am afraid that this would condition a generation of Americans who have no expectation of privacy or protection against government intrusion into their daily lives.

Time. Airport security has been a major focus. But it still takes forever to get through the line. How bad would it be for public transportation, schools, hospitals, etc?

I think we need to realize that gun free zones don't work except in very rare cases. When they are imposed at the federal level, they basically create a huge unfunded mandate that requires states and local communities to decide if and how they will provide alternate means of security. As we see with school shooting after school shooting, often they provide to not provide any security at all. Hope is not a plan. I understand securing courthouses and other sites that are sensitive, and in those cases, the above security measures are worth the cost.

The better solution, however, for schools, national parks, etc, is to allow responsible adult citziens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Do teachers who carry in school need to be especially careful about storage? You bet -- anyone that CCWs is legally held to a higher standard of care, and those who would carry around children especially so. In fact, some teachers may find it impractical (teaching PE while packing might be hard). But why deny that right to ALL teachers, or forbid them from keeping weapons in their cars?

I think there are ways to responsibly exercise the right around children:

• Avoid off-body carry where its possible you'll leave your fanny pack/purse/glock-daytimer laying around by accident
• Use a holster with a retention system
• Have a handy safe in your desk (or in the front office!) for any accessories
• Use a weapon with extra safety features such as an external safety, DA/SA or DAO, magnaring trigger lock, etc
• Even consider carrying in Condition 4 (unloaded, no round in the chamber or magazine in the well)
• Have training from a knowledgeable professional! Refresh that training often.
  

Honestly, some of these are just plain good ideas anyways, but especially good ideas around kids. I don't see how a responsible teacher carrying a pistol with a safety in a secure holster inside the waistband which has been fitted with a magnaring trigger (can only be fired if you have a special magnetic ring) who keeps a few extra magazines locked up in a safe tucked into a desk drawer poses ANY threat whatsoever to the safety of our children.

If we trust people to fill our kids up with information, why don't we trust them to protect our kids? Ideas are much more dangerous than guns ever can be.

Guns: Musings on a Battery

I'm currently deployed to a sunny sandy spot of the world. But when I get home, I plan on acquiring a battery of firearms. Probably not all at once, but firearms are expensive enough that I think its worthwhile doing some careful planning. Cry once, buy once.

Turns out that the appropriate term for a selection of firearms is a battery. Guns each have a purpose; you wouldn't use a hammer to turn screws, and you don't use a .22 to defend against a black bear. So, a battery will usually include several different kids of firearms for different purposes. Traditionally, there are three main types of guns in a battery; the handgun, rifle, and shotgun (hence, 3 gun competitions and such). Such a grouping is versatile in many situations.

This is roughly what I think my battery will end up looking like:

.357 mag (or maybe .44 mag): Snub Revolver, Service Revolver, Lever Action Carbine
Useful for outdoor activities. Revolvers are rugged and reliable even under adverse conditions. Additionally, a hot .357 is superior to any of the semiauto calibers as far as energy/penetration goes, especially out of a carbine. A .44 mag is almost in rifle territory, especially out of a carbine. Living in Alaska where there are Big Animals, having something with high energy and significant penetration is a Good Thing.

Semiautos (9MM, .40 SW, .357 SIG, or .45 ACP): Compact or Subcompact pistol, Service pistol, Pistol-Caliber Carbine
Fun for target shooting and for CCW around town. My duty handgun is a M9 so commonality of training is good to build muscle memory for tactical reloads, DA/SA, etc. Also, semiautos will be first to be banned so I want to get while the getting is good.

.22: Some sort of .22 handgun and longarm
.22 ammo is dirt cheap and it has very light recoil. This makes for excellent practice.

MilSurp: I may get an old bolt action MilSurp rifle if there's a cool one at the Fall Gun Show for <$200. Just because I like collecting old stuff with history.

Shotgun: May get a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun, probably 20 gauge. Very versatile and shooting clay pigeons is fun. If I see one used and cheap at the Fall Gun Show, again, I'll be tempted.

Some of these will probably be his and hers sets. DW has much smaller hands and is a left handed shooter; I'm a righty. So it will be tough for us to share.

INTERCHANGEABLE

With the pistol calibers at least, I want maximum interchangeability; at least caliber, and preferably magazines.

• AMMO: As we have to move every few years, stocking multiple calibers of ammo is a pain in the butt. I want to just be able to order 1000 rounds of 9MM, or 1000 rounds of .40 SW, or 1000 rounds of .45 and be done with it. I don't want to have to order .45 for me and 9MM for her. With this battery, I'd need to stock a semiauto caliber, .357 or .44, and .22. Three calibers of ammo -- not bad.
• MAGS: Good mags are expensive. They are cheaper if you buy in bulk. And you need a lot of them. If all of our semiautos use the same type of magazine we can save money by just stocking up once and buying a stack of them. It also makes interchangeability of gear very easy, something that police departments have realized for years with their glock & baby glock combinations. Its also easier if our mags are interchangeable for logistics purposes.
  
• PARTS: If your semiautos are all similar, then its much easier to have a few different sized backstraps or firing pins on hand that will work for any of them.
• TRAINING: If our semiautos are similar then we'll be very familiar with each other's CCWs, which is good.
  

Why a PCC?

You may have noticed that the primary longarms in my potential battery are pistol caliber carbines. I understand the limitations of a Pistol Caliber Carbine, but its a good choice for my situation and circumstances.

• They can be shot indoors with cheap ammo. This means we'll shoot more (AK is cold, I don't want to go to an outdoor range to shoot my "real" rifle in January).
• They are easy to shoot. If you're not devoting much time to the range, or if you want a weapon as a loaner, or if you're a novice, carbines are much handier than pistols. In a highly stressful situation, even a trained shooter has better accuracy with a carbine than a handgun.
• They're a lot of fun for plinking, and if we're going to spend money on something, it should be practical as a hobby.
• A PCC is a little handier than a rifle; they tend to be a bit lighter, although they can't be shorter. For example, a PCC might weigh in at 4 lbs; an AR-15 carbine (M4 length) is 6 lbs, and a real .30-06 style hunting rifle is probably over 10 lbs.
  
• While you sacrifice the power and range of a rifle, you gain lighter weight ammo and complete interchangeability with your sidearm. This makes a PCC ideal as a "trunk gun," as the weapon is completely interchangable with your CCW. On long trips in rural AK where there is no 911 that might be comforting.
• Most PCCs don't look too much like Evil Black Rifles. A Marlin Lever-action is pretty non-threatening. The Beretta Storm looks sleek and futuristic, not ominous and military. The KelTec just looks cheap, and the HiPoint is chunky. This makes them less intimidating.
• They are likely to be banned in any sort of Assault Weapons Ban renewal.
  
• You pick up some energy. In the magnum cartridges, the round almost doubles in energy from the longer barrel. In the auto cartridges, the gain is more modest, about 10-30%, but its real. In AK this is a big deal due to our large critters. A hot .357 mag cartridge out of a carbine would probably be good enough against anything we'd get up here other than a brown bear probably. The .44 mag would be very effective indeed even against the bigger critters. Is it a rifle? No. Is it good enough? Probably. Combine extra energy with better shot placement and that's a good thing.

The main advantages you get from a real rifle are (1) energy, (2) penetration, and (3) range. More energy would be good, but I don't need more penetration (over penetration is a significant problem for defense -- you don't use a .30-06 in CQB for a reason!), and I don't need range. I'm not going to be shooting bears at 300 meters.

So that's the broad strokes of the battery: A brace of semiautos + PCC (for CCW), a brace of revolvers + PCC (for outdoors activities), a .22 set, and maybe a shotgun/old collector's rifle.

REVIEW: Combat Handgunnery (6th Edition)

Ayoob, Massad. The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery (6th edition). Iola: Gun Digest Books, 2007.



BLUF: A solid and helpful book, but I'm unclear as to the audience and there's some fluff.

The stated goal of Combat Handgunnery is to describe how to defend your family, your home, and yourself. In that case, it seems to be aimed squarely at private armed citizens. We'll see how well it measures up to the stated goal.

ORGANZIATION: As is becoming typical, here's a quick overview of the book's contents. There are 15 chapters in a 254 page book. While Massad doesn't split up the book into sections, I think it'd be fair to say that there's about 1/2 the book describes guns, gunleather, and gear; 2/5 is technique, and the small remainder is assorted other goodies.

LAYOUT: As I am coming to expect with Mr. Ayoob's work, the text is conversational and clear. The book, like Gun Digest's Book of Concealed Carry, is well illustrated, mostly with photos of Massad. Particularly helpful are the shots that show action step by step. My only complaint is that as in the other Gun Digest book, Massad is the primary model for everything. I would have liked to see shots of people of varying builds doing the tasks.

CONTENT: Now on to the content itself. There's a lot of good stuff here. On the technique side, Mr. Ayoob gets into the nitty gritty "how to" for everything from the basics of trigger control to Handgun Retention 101. This is good stuff, and there's a lot of it. Where there is controversy, Mas breaks it down and presents the background and arguments both sides and then gives his verdict (which is sometimes, "Both are right, just in different situations"). He dos this over and over, with ammo choices, shooting stances, revolver vs. semiautos, etc. And it works. There's well over a hundred pages of outstanding material in here.

The gear sections were a bit less impressive. The best of them is his discussion of ammunition. He gives both sides of the common argument (lab performance vs. street stopping power) and then a final bottom line choice ("You can't go wrong with the .38 special FBI load"). This is good, because he narrows down a complicated field of contenders to a set of viable choices, quickly. I also enjoyed his discussion of the progression of handgun technology from revolvers to semiautos to the "wondernines." There's are some random golden tips scattered throughout that really make you think, "Gee, that's a good idea!" For example, his suggestion to purchase some police surplus soft body armor just makes sense (When you want a gun, you'll also want armor; you'll want it at the range if you're frequently shooting around strangers; and most usefully, it gives you a safer backstop in the home to use when clearing, cleaning, and dry firing).

However, much of the material on gunleather is redundant with the Book of Concealed Carry; that which is not is specific to police (not armed citizens or military). Many of the gun reviews are available for free online, or are lifted at least in part from some of Mr. Ayoob's magazine articles; for example, the Beretta Px4 Storm writeup is the same as this one from Guns Magazine. I would have preferred a reference to an online supplement that discusses recent trends, or to other books that discuss things in more detail. For example, cut some of the CCW techniques and include more open-police carry gouge; there's a whole book on CCW techniques already!

Now, to the "grabbag" material that doesn't quite fit. On one hand, I particularly enjoyed a chapter entitled "Beyond the stereotypes." This chapter specifically addresses women, minorities and other shooters that don't fit the stereotype of a WASP cop or bubba redneck packing heat. As an individual who is of Middle Eastern descent himself, with two actively shooting daughters, Massood is clearly qualified to write on this important topic. However, I'm not sure how relevant it is to a discussion on combat handgunnery. The women's section briefly talks about some techniques for women but for the most part, this section is "political." Its good, but I don't know that it fits. Likewise with "Avoiding Mistakes." Safety is important but this chapter goes beyond safety and covers things like CCW faux pas and guns storage.

I would have really liked to see space dedicated to a review of training facilities and courses. The techniques Ayoob discusses really need to be learned from an instructor, not from a book. They've given me a lot to think about and will no doubt help my shooting and self-defense skills, but you don't learn weapon retention purely out of a book. I know Mas operates his own course (LFI) and has his own TTPs (Stressfire) but still, an honest review of the "heavy hitters" (NRA courses, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Seattle Firearms Academy, etc) or at least contact info for them would have been good. Even just a generic, "What a good training class looks like, what it costs, what you should bring, etc" would have been helpful.

Additionally, this book would have benefited from better organization. Each chapter seems to be written as a standalone; that's ok, as its a reference book and people are liable to jump around. However, it would have been easy to chunk together all the chapters on gear into one section, or to include an index.

I think that Mas should write a book that focuses on philosophical/social/political issues as well as absolute fundamentals. Basically, "Ayoob for Newbies." There would go Shooting 101, Safety, Gear 101, and most importantly, all the politics/social chapters like "Beyond the Stereotypes." That would free up space in "how to" manuals like this for more TTPs. Because fundamentally, that's what this book is: a how-to book that's meant to be referenced as needed. The social/political/philosophical stuff will only be read once, and never be needed again. That's a shame for what is otherwise a useful book.

So, time for the bottom line. This is a helpful book, despite the sections that will not be read more than once. If you're serious about shooting, it is a handy reference. However, some parts are more useful than others. Also, Mas jumps back and forth between writing for a cop and writing for a citizen, and doesn't even address military issues. I think this would be good to read before you take a class (to "prime the pump") or to review after you take a class (to refresh), but is not a substitute for actual hands on training. Like the book on Concealed Carry -- is it worth $25 MSRP? Ehh, not sure. But for $10-15, its a good buy.

Overall Rating: 3.5. A quality reference but saddled with marginal organization, some fluff, and jumps in target audience.

Sarah Palin's surprise announcement

For those that haven't heard, Sarah Palin has resigned as governor.

This is my quick assessment.

Fact: Her political future is dim until at least 2014, when Sen Begich's (D-AK) first term is up. Sen Murkowski (R-AK) slammed the door to a primary competition with Palin. “I can guarantee it would be a very tough election,” said Murkowski. McCain, meanwhile, won't endorse her, allows his staffers to throw her under the bus, and won't list her as a viable candidate in 2012. While she has a lot of popularity, there's no way she'd be a viable candidate in 2012 against an Obama Incumbent Juggernaut, although she could make an acceptable sacrificial lamb to be bound for the slaughter if the Republican party can't find a more acceptable sacrifice. And I don't think Pres Obama is going to assign her as an ambassador to some posh country any time soon.

Fact: Every day she's in the public eye, she incurs huge stress for her family, significant debt for the state (with legal action), and a chance to screw up before a large audience, further torpedoing her political future.

She needs to get off the radar, stat, if she has any hope of rehabiliting herself politically. Additionally, her family has been thrown under intense media scrutiny that she clearly finds offensive. I think getting off the stage for now is a good decision politically and personally for her.

If she can go low-profile, maybe get some more education, get a bit more polished, give her family time to stabalize and rebuild some privacy, and let some of her kids grow up some, then she'll be much more viable in either 2012 for a position in a potential Republican administration (Secretary of the Interior or something along those lines) or in 2014 for a challenge against Sen Begich.

Two things to post about sometime

Alaska Firearms Freedom Act

H.R. 2159: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

4th of July

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States...

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Sale at LAPG

LAPG is offering 15% off for the 4th of July. Its only good for another day or two!

I've been pretty happy with their selection and prices. 5.11 pants for $20? Yes please!

REVIEW: Boston's Gun Bible

Party, Boston T. Boston's Gun Bible. united states of America:Javelin press , 2008.



A note: Boston T. Party is a pen name for Kenneth Royce. I am reviewing the 2008 edition of this book, which was originally published in 1998 with revisions in 2000 and 2002.

BLUF: A politically charged rantfest that is still sprinkled liberally with useful information; great section on historical battle rifles.

Wow, where to begin. Boston himself states that his primary goal is to "dispel many potentially dangerous gun misconceptions." His secondary goal is to "compose the single most useful gun encyclopedia for the modern gunowner." He thinks he's succeeded; I have more mixed feelings.

First, some cursory content analysis. The book is a hefty brick around 3" thick. There are 46 chapters in 6 parts.
PART I: The Basics (6 chapters)
PART II: Battle Rifles (13 chapters)
PART III: All Other Guns (6 chapters)
PART IV: Acquisition (4 chapters)
PART V: Disarmament (10 chapters)
PART VI: Courage (7 chapters)

As you can see, Boston's top priority is rating battle rifles. Then, there's a strong focus on political/social/liberty issues. Everything else has relatively little devoted to it. So, right off the bat, his claim to be an end-all be-all definitive encyclopedia is a bit off (although, it could still be the most useful compilation).

First, let's look at what went right with this book, from my perspective. First, there is a lot of good information in here. Jeff Cooper's alertness scale, gun safety rules, basic tactics, fundamentals of rifle marksmanship -- this is all good. It puts a lot of very useful concepts from a wide variety of sources into one book. Next, the information on historical battle rifles is pure gold. Now, I know the difference between the Lee-Enfield, Mauser, and Mosin-Nagant rifle families. As a history buff, this is good info. I now understand the difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle, and I learned a lot about my M16 (and the AK!) that might save my life someday. Boston has gotten me excited about owning a milsurp historic rifle and he's given me the info to start researching a wise choice.

Another thing I really like about this book is its no-holds barred prescriptive tone. Boston has strong opinions on many subjects and he is not afraid to tell you what to do. He'll weigh all the options and then give you his bottom line; "Buy THIS first, buy THAT second, etc." That's very helpful for the individual new to this hobby. There's a lot of choices out there and Boston does a good job of eliminating the worst ones, listing the decent ones, and giving you his pick.

Finally, there's a pretty good table of contents (although no index).

Now for the bad. This book shows its age in parts. In "creeping citizen disarmament," the dates for predictions for more restrictive legislation have already passed. There's a lot of material on the 1994 AWB. New developments in firearms are not necessarily covered, and a lot of pricing information has gotten sorely dated (although, it does reinforce his point that the time to buy is now, because prices will only go UP!), which would have an impact on the recommendations. A rifle that was a bargain at <$100 a few years ago that now costs $300+ may not be a good buy.

Additionally, there's a lot of political material in here. Some of it might be eye opening, but read with a grain of salt. Boston has an agenda, and while there may be some truth in there, there's also propaganda. I don't see how some of the material contributes to his goals. For example, he refuses to use the "$" sign. He instead uses a symbol which refers to "Federal Reserve Notes." Ok, we get it -- you think paper currency is worthless. There's a symbol that represents that inflation-prone fiat money, and its the dollar sign. Why bother with the distraction?

The section on "rating the battle rifles," which really is the meat and potatoes of the book, is mind-numbing. Boston's methodology, while on the surface thorough, is really fundamentally arbitrary. His qualitative methodology takes up 1/20th the space and reaches the same conclusions while possible being more accurate. I think Boston could have used some more rigorous analytical techniques such as the Delphi Method to rank the battle rifles, and it would have been better to read and deeper analysis. Boston dismisses the SKS and AK-47 entirely, even though these are common and popular weapons. I understand his point about the .30 caliber round's advantages, but despite that, the Russian 7.62 is very popular. I think he might also be a bit dismissive of the 5.56/AR-15. Sure, it has limitations, but there are strong advantages as well. Boston does not consider the use of 5.56 in urban areas, CQB, or supporting government forces. If, as he postulates, it is TEOTWAWKI, there might be some value in having interchangeable equipment with your local national guard so that you can cooperate with them, no? Also, his dismissal of the 5.56 and AK make me think a lot of Jeff Cooper's derisiveness of the "poodle shooter;" It makes me wonder if Boston is just parroting Col Cooper.

Now, the ugly. First, some parts of this book are blatant copy-paste sales pitch. For example, his chapter on Body Armor is ripped from the folks at BulletProofMe.com. Is it good info? Maybe. Are they trying to sell something? Definitely. It makes the sourcing questionable, and makes me wonder what else has been accepted as gospel directly from some other salesman.

Boston slams Gavin De Becker's The Gift of Fear. Now, I've never read this book. However, the critique is stuck into section 1, which otherwise is excellent and covers safety, basic tactics, etc. His critique more appropriately belongs in one of the later sections. It was particularly jarring right up front, and nearly turned me off from reading further.

There are sections that are just plain questionable in legality; what does adding a chapter on how to have a "cold" gun add? Really? 99.9999999999% (or more!) of law abiding gun owners will never need this information. Including it makes the whole book suspect to include in a law-abiding gun owner's library.

I think his treatment of handguns is not necessarily even handed -- Boston loves his glocks. For example, he slams Double Action Only handguns. However, these handguns have a valuable purpose for the law abiding citizen. There's a reason cops use the heavier trigger pull, and it makes sense for armed citizens too. Boston is thinking a bit too much of TEOTWAWKI, and not enough about the here and now of practical armed self-defense in an urban or suburban environment. Sure, your handgun is something you use to fight your way back to your rifle -- but not in the majority of the real self-defense situations armed citizens actually find themselves in.

If its not a battle rifle, expect Boston to dump on it. Shotguns, pistol caliber carbines, handguns, assault rifles -- Boston has no love lost for these, even though they make viable choices for many purposes. Be warned. At least he makes you think and defend your reasons for selecting these firearms, if you do choose them, but I don't agree with him on all points. Also, the only inexpensive stuff Boston advocates seems to be milsurp; not everyone can afford to drop a grand on a good gun, and not everyone wants to deal with milsurp. Boston ignores or is dismissive of cheaper options like Hi-Point, which make perfectly serviceable bargain guns.

Well, this is getting lengthy, but a long tome like this deserves a long review. I'd best wrap this up. Boston's Gun Bible is a controversial book. Its got some very good parts in it. If you are not a political activist and are interested in guns just for practical self-defense (i.e., handguns) or sporting purposes, you may be turned off by parts of this "encyclopedia." If you can skip the parts you don't find useful, there's a lot of good gouge to be gleaned here. Part I, "The Basics," and the concise and well organized historical overview of rifle technology is worth the price of admission alone in my opinion.

Overall Rating: 2.5/5. If you're interested in a compilation of basic info, info on battle rifles, or a political pro-gun shot in the arm, read away. The reasonable price saves this book from a lower rating; I'd be hesitant to pay much more than I did.

The List of Lists

This is a list of Checklists for preparedness. The primary source is FEMA. I've augmented where I feel necessary though.

I think each section ultimately needs to have three parts.

• Plan
• Stuff
• Skills

You need to have a gameplan, and if its going to be implemented quickly, it needs to be developed ahead of time and written down somewhere. You also need stuff: a kit with essential supplies. A plan is great but when its -20 below and the car broke down, well, a plan won't keep you warm. You need a coat, or a space blanket. Finally, you need skills. Having a first aid kit in the car is not helpful if nobody knows how to use it.

In no particular order, this is my list of lists for the moment. Each of these topics will eventually get its own list of stuff, skills, and planning.

• MEDICAL (Both trauma and chronic)
  
• SANITATION (Hygeine and disease)
  
• FOOD (Storing food)
  
• WATER (Storing water, and getting more water)
• SHELTER (AK is cold)
  
• TRANSPORTATION (Travel & Mobility)
  
• POWER/LIGHTING/ELECTRICITY (when the power goes out)
  
• SELF-DEFENSE (vs. predators of all kinds)
  
• FIRE PROTECTION (fire is bad, mmkay)
  
• COMMUNICATIONS (keeping in touch with family, employers, and neighbors)
  
• ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS (Protecting wealth & identity)

And some specific plans that make sense, mainly from Listening to Katrina:

• PLAN: 60 SECONDS (the house is on fire!)
  
• PLAN: 60 MINUTES (the tsunami is coming!)
  
• PLAN: 12 HOURS
  
• PLAN: 60 HOURS
  

Citizen Preparedness

Heather and I think its important to take common sense precautions for emergency situations. Both of us are public servants; if a disaster occurs, we need to be able to spend minimal time taking care of our own stuff so that we can help others.

To that end, we will occasionally have articles on Citizen Preparedness. This is the program name coined by FEMA for responsible citizens who prepare themselves for disasters.

WHAT THIS IS NOT

Let me speak for a moment about what this is NOT. In the "gun culture" there seems to be a strong thread of survivalism. "Shit Hits the Fan" (SHTF), "The End of The World As We Know It" (TEOTWAWKI), and other such terms are tossed about pretty liberally. They mean a lot of things to different people, ranging from common sense preparations against natural disasters to getting ready for the post-apocalyptic collapse of society.

We are not preparing for Armageddon. If that's what you're interested in, go elsewhere.

WHAT THIS IS

What this section IS, however, is a set of reasonable precautions based on advice from well regarded authorities and personal experiences that will help us "Have Our Shit Together" if we are ever in a disaster. Its about being ready to help others. Its not about having a hydroponic garden in a remote castle retreat with sharks and lasers while fighting off bands of mutant zombies. Although, having a castle equipped with sharks with frickin' lasers would be pretty sweet.

SPECIFIC SCENARIOS

Its useful for me to think about specific scenarios to be prepared for based on where we live. Here's a few I've brainstormed, from small and local to larger and regional. Note that all of these have different INTENSITIES, LIKELIHOODS, and DURATIONS. A major earthquake has a low likelihood, but its intense and the impact will be felt for a long duration.

Of course, all of these are relatively low likelihood. More likely than not, our house will NOT burn down, and we will NOT see a car accident, and there will NOT be an earthquake. However, I like to hedge my bets a bit. I've already been a first responder after a vehicle accident and knowing what to do was essential. Just because the odds are low doesn't mean that they are nonexistent.

LOCAL: These emergencies are short in duration and localized in nature
- House fire
- Medical emergency, up to and including multiple car pileups
- Random violent street crime
- Animal attack (Mama bear gets angry, moose goes berserk, wolves, etc)

REGIONAL: These situations will affect the Anchorage Bowl or perhaps beyond. They are further reaching in effect and duration. Some of them are more intense than others. Even if our home is not affected, as public servants we may be expected to be involved.
- Massive Snowstorm: Possible for essential services to be disrupted for some time.
- Toxic Spill/Industrial Accident: There are industrial RR tracks within a few miles of our house; Anchorage is a very busy port facility.
- Volcano, minor ashfall
- Earthquake, minor
- Infectious disease, minor (swine flu, avian flu, etc)
- Terrorist attacks, minor
- Wildfires
- Flooding

"SHTF:" When I talk about the fecal matter hitting the oscillating device, this is what I mean. These are realistic (if low probability) events that could happen where we live, and they'd have significant and wide-ranging consequences. Even if our home is not affected, as public servants we may be expected to be involved.
- Earthquake, major
- Volcano, significant ashfall
- Toxic Spill/Industrial Accident, major
- Infectious disease, major
- War involving the US and other countries in the Pacific with capability and intent to target bases in Alaska
- Terrorism involving WMD
- Tsunami near populated area

The threat or scenario drives preparations.

REVIEW: The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry

Ayoob, Massad. The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry. Iola: Gun Digest Books, 2008.

BLUF: A solid choice for in-depth, contemporary discussion of concealed carry techniques.



The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry intends to be a "one stop shop" for concealed carry questions. The large bullets on the cover proclaim everything from Proper Weapon and Accessory Selection to State-by-State Laws & Regulations to Safe Carry Techniques. Weighing in at 254 pages/19 chapters in four sections, how well does the book measure up?

Well, a simple page and chapter count can tell you where the real meat and potatoes are:
PART I -- SOFTWARE (4 chapters/~30 pages)
PART II -- HARDWARE (2 chapters/~40 pages)
PART III -- CARRY METHODS (10 chapters/~130 pages)(!!!)
PART IV -- ENHANCEMENTS (3 chapters/~30 pages)

So, yes, it does touch on accessories and types of guns and legal issues, but make no mistake: the heart of this book is the in-depth discussion of concealed carry methods. The "software" section deals with mental preparation and legal issues; it is no substitute for reading a resource devoted to this topic like Grossman's On Killing or Ayoob's own In the Gravest Extreme. The "hardware" section briefly discusses types of handguns and ammunition loads, but it is no substitute for a dedicated book like Combat Handgunnery, Boston's Gun Bible, or any of the numerous online resources. On the upside, these brief discussions do introduce the topics for a person new to CCW; however, they would benefit from a bibliography. Mr. Ayoob references other books occasionally in the text but a "next steps suggested reading" to flesh out each chapter would be a great addition. The front-cover vaunted discussion of state by state gun laws is a two page table, and I'd advise you to use a more-up-to-date resource such as the internet rather than relying on a book given today's rapidly changing gun laws.

The real meat of this book is in the carry methods, and here you will not be disappointed. Massad goes through in detail and discusses each type of technique. He outlines implications for wardrobe, tactics, equipment, comfort, etc for each method. His treatment seems even handed and he reccomends a wide variety of holsters for different purposes.

The book's layout is great, with liberal use of illustrastions and pictures. They are particularly helpful in the carry methods section. Ayoob uses a transparent rain slicker which works as a surprisingly good teaching aid to allow the reader to see the concealed weapon, but also see how it would be concealed under normal clothing. Photos taken in a sequence showing each step in a draw from concealment make the prose crystal clear. One complaint I do have is that almost all the photos use Mr. Ayoob as the model. I would have liked to see some with people of different body types; short, tall, thin, fat, male, female, etc.

The focus is on carry for men, but Mr. Ayoob is sensitive to women who CCW. He has daughters who both carry and thus is aware of the issues involved. He specifically identifies holsters that have worked for his female relatives, students and colleagues.

One thing that would have helped to organize the vast amount of knowledge crammed into these pages would be a summary or table. A table for each carry method listing types of holsters with their pros and cons and a picture would have been helpful. Or, at least shopping reccomendations for common, representative handguns: "If you carry a full-size glock, consider this type of shoulder holster..." Of course, this goes against Massad's stated goal of avoiding "put downs" for holsters he does not like or shamelessly promoting his favorites, but it would have at least formed an actionable shopping list for the new CCW. Likewise, a summary page at the end of the carry methods section to bring the whole section together and reemphasize the broad points would be nice. Still, this is a nitpick that I only mention because there is a wealth of useful information in here!

Two chapters I found interesting were on Open Carry and IDPA. Interestingly, the day I read the Open Carry chapter, Heather asked me about the exact same topic. Mr. Ayoob presents both sides of the argument fairly and then shares his personal views. Its a great discussion of a nuanced issue.

The section on IDPA was a good intro for those new to the shooting sports, but was a bit light on info and heavy on photos from one particular match. Given the full-page photos (and empty blank pages at the end of the book!), I felt like this had been slapped on in a hurry to fill pages; it doesn't detract, by any means, but it is a bit out of place and could be fleshed out a bit better.

This book certainly has a place on your bookshelf if you're new to CCW. There are free resources like Kathy Johnson's holster discussion on the Cornered Cat website, but the Gun Digest Book of CCW is useful if for no other reason than benefitting from Mr. Ayoob's decades of CCW research and personal experience as well as the excellent photos illustrating each method. Even the experienced armed citizen may learn something new, especially if considering a new type of holster or carry method.

Is it worth $25 MSRP? Probably. But luckily, Amazon has it for $10 less, pushing this from the "nice to have" to the "why not? its a great value!" category. I'd prefer to spend $15 on a well-illustrated and helpful book and $100 on holsters that work the first time than skip the book and end up spending twice as much holsters because I didn't know what I was doing when I bought the first set of leather.

Overall rating: 4/5. Good value and of broad interest; Excellent, methodical, and well-illustrated discussion of CCW carry methods.