A Subtle Attack On Gun Shows In Virginia: ...The rationale for the exemption for private sales stands up when it's applied to keep from complicating the lives and choices of individual gun owners. Why should Uncle Al have to worry about getting a background check on his next-door neighbor, a fellow gun collector, in order to sell him that extra handgun? But the exemption has earned its nickname - the Gun Show Loophole - when that one-on-one transaction leaves the neighborhood and takes up a sales booth in a big arena. Now it's more like a commercial transaction - but with no questions asked... Hampton requires promoters who want to sponsor gun shows at its facilities to bring in only licensed dealers. And to make things simple, the State Police are on hand to do instant background checks. The beauty of the city's approach is that it addressed the loophole without needing the permission of the General Assembly. The legislature has rejected bills to close the loophole, and will probably do it again. So Hampton used its leverage as the owner of the exhibition space to make rules for the companies that would use it. (In Arizona, gun shows were specifically pre-empted from local regulation after the City of Tucson attempted to mandate background checks for private-party transactions conducted or originating at gun shows held on city property.) http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_gunshow_edit_1029oct29,0,4625776.story --- It Spreads From California: Wildlife advocates say a new California law barring hunters from using lead ammunition in the California condor's range should prompt Arizona to issue its own ban. Four groups that asked the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for a ban earlier this year are pressing for a response now that California's law is on the books. "We're certainly looking at Arizona now," said Jeff Miller, with the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's the next step in our campaign." (It's unclear what defines a "wildlife advocate." Bans on hunting tend to harm wildlife populations.) http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1028condors1028.html --- Oops, Wrong House: Arthur Williams is 75 years old and blind, but still managed to shoot an intruder who broke into his southeast Gainesville home early Friday. Cevaughn Curtis Jr., 28, of Gainesville allegedly forced his way into Williams' home before being shot in the neck...Williams said he keeps a .32-caliber revolver to protect himself. After warning the intruder, Williams shot in the man's direction. "I can hear - I backed up and I shot him," he said. "I knew I hit him when he fell." (It would be interesting to know if Mr. Williams had any prior training in point shooting, which was taught in some military and paramilitary environments in WWII and in law enforcement for several years later.) http://gainesvillesun.com/article/20071027/NEWS/710270315/1002/NEWS --- South African Commentary On American "Shoot First" Laws: As South Africa empowers its criminals by failing to renew the firearm licenses of its law-abiding citizens, one news source looks at American castle-doctrine laws. It errs in parroting the claim that this legal doctrine originated in with 2005 legislation in Florida - California, for one, had castle-doctrine provisions in its penal and civil codes years earlier. Many states, whether by statute or case law, had stand-your-ground doctrines before 2005.) http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=nw20071027150122106C145258 --- From John Farnam: 24 Oct 07 Birdshot for defense? This is from an LEO, and one of our instructors, in WY: "One occasionally hears the suggestion that birdshot, from a shotgun, is an effective home-defense load. The argument is that is won't penetrate excessively, that it is 'effective' at close range, ad nauseam. I'm currently involved in a murder investigation that has convinced me, beyond all doubt, that the use of birdshot as a defense load is a poor idea indeed! Our perpetrator, in a high state of intoxication, decided to settle an old score with the victim. After informing the victim of his intentions, he armed himself with an old, Winchester M97 and charged the tube with WW, full-power, 9-pellet, 00 buckshot. Meanwhile, the victim locked himself in his auto-repair shop, and, anticipating the confrontation, also armed himself with, of all things, another Winchester M97, but he charged his tube with low-brass, #6 birdshot. The evidence suggests that the victim didn't know much about guns in general, shotguns in particular, and virtually nothing about shotgun ammunition. He obviously thought 'ammunition is ammunition.' The lethal confrontation took place in the repair shop, with the two combatants separated by less than two meters. The perpetrator opened festivities by using his shotgun to blow the lock off a locked door. It took two rounds of buckshot. The lock was demolished, and the door blown open. There was a refrigerator just inside the door, and the victim was a few feet away, on the other side. As the perpetrator advanced, the victim fired one round at him. His aim was poor, and most of the lead shot hit (and failed to penetrate) the refrigerator door. A few struck the perpetrator in the face, destroying his right eye. The startled perpetrator pulled his head back but immediately rolled back out from behind the refrigerator and fired a single shot. All nine pellets of 00 buckshot struck the victim in the center of his torso. The victim probably suffered a fatal injury, falling where he was hit. The perpetrator then walked over to the victim, who was laying on his back, and fired a second shot into his face from only a few inches. The victim's head was blown to pieces. When we found the body, he was, long since, DRT! Our perpetrator then walked out the shop, got in his truck, and drove nearly one hundred miles to the small, ranching community where he lived. Only when his eye injury was pointed out to him, as well as the fact that his shirt and trousers were soaked in blood (mostly his own), did he grudgingly concede that he might need medical attention. Hours later, we arrested him at the hospital where he sought aid. He is now on trial for murder and will most likely spend the rest of his life, with only one eye, in prison. Just another local idiot who had too much liquid courage!" Comment: When it is your intention to defend yourself successfully, particularly against evil and determined individuals, you're well advised to use a weapon and load that will end the fight quickly and decisively. And, and you better be an adequate marksman too, as you'll likely not get a second chance! It's an age-old lesson that this victim learned the hard way. Unhappily, he didn't live long enough to put his new-found knowledge to work! /John (While I agree that birdshot is not a wise choice for self-defense, I feel that it's important to sort out the factors in the argument properly. Those who advocate its use do so out of concern that stray pellets not penetrate multiple layers of sheetrock, harming unseen innocent parties downrange. Failure to penetrate a refrigerator door might be seen as bolstering that argument. Birdshot pellets, like buckshot pellets, tend to stay together for approximately one yard past the muzzle, after which the shot column normally begins to open up. In that first yard or so, either shot column will do substantial damage. However, a long gun is a risky weapon to use at such close range as it provides an assailant a lot of leverage for deflection and disarming. In this case, it's unclear how many "a few feet" is but it would appear to have been less than two meters [less than seven feet]; had the shot been properly aimed, the central part of the pattern may have created a more impressive effect than the peripheral portion that flew past the refrigerator door. Perhaps the most important points are (a) that shotguns do require aiming and (b) that unaimed shots and stray pellets, not the use of effective ammo, are the true sources of concern for innocent parties downrange. Personally, I prefer a .223 carbine, which only launches one projectile at a time. As an aside, with training, I do consider point shooting, within appropriate ranges for one's skill, to be aimed.) -- Stephen P. Wenger Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .