Following a Trail

We've talked about the Blue Trail Range before, or at least about tinkling there.

TJH sends an update:

Part of Blue Trail has been reopened, much to the disappointment of the editors of the Hartford Courant.

Information has been sparse, and I didn't want to comment without knowing more. My club includes a member who is a Connecticut State Trooper. When asked about the status of the case--during our monthly club meeting--he said that both sides have their lawyers, and everyone is tight-lipped at this point.

However, since the editorial staff at The Courant has brought up the subject, and made accusations of their own, I figured I can speak up. I have to say that I suspected that this would be the outcome. I've visited this range, and I am familiar with its layout. The following will be helpful:

Visit: http://mapper.acme.com/

Click on the 'hybrid' mode link.

Paste these coordinates into the search box, then hit 'Find':
N 41.45638 W 72.74771

This should mark the firing line of the 200-yard range. You should be able to see the reservoir to the right. This is the range that will be closed to rifles "for the foreseeable future".

The 100-yard range is here:
N 41.45464 W 72.74822

The reason why I am pointing this out is the difference between the two ranges, made obvious by the feature shown at N 41.45450 W 72.74711 : the berm. The 200-yard range doesn't have a berm like this. All the ranges are constructed so one is shooting down into a depression, and the 100-yard berm is an imposing feature that I would guess is at least 15 feet high, if not more.

I include this quote from the editorial:

"Ms. McCarthy's confidence is misplaced. Bullets have been hitting trees in the state park and homes in Durham for years. Yet only recently has Mr. Lyman has seen fit to invest in safety improvements."

The author is attempting to paint David Lyman as some careless yahoo who has done nothing to address concerns over the years. I strongly suspect that the author has no personal experience with Blue Trail range. The 100-yard range has 50-yard target holders. Patrons have been barred from using them. Considering the investment in building the 50-yard apparatus, I can think of no other reason than additional safety to do so. All the 100-yard stations also have a sheet of plywood that makes it pretty clear that the muzzle must go no higher than a certain point. Shooters must only shoot from the bench. It is impossible to clear the berm without being so careless as to raise the muzzle into the wood and cause damage to the building.

I am even skeptical that anyone on the 200-yard range could clear the 450 foot peak in the state park (click on 'Topo' mode) from the angle of incidence on a ground ricochet. I don't have a reference table, but I imagine the one-mile distance to the mountain top would result in a considerable amount of bullet drop--especially after losing energy tearing up dirt.

Still, the range buildings bear the scars of careless idiots. These are most prominent on the pistol range. The presence of rust in the holes suggests that these have been
around a while. The editors at The Courant don't seem to understand the value of doing something (anything!) to reduce liability, even if there is nothing technically wrong with the range in its current state. My last visit was in the Fall of 2006. I did not notice anything amiss. The same rules are posted, and, as always, there were at least two range officers present.

The Courant accuses David Lyman of conducting himself "in bad faith", and suggests that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection shut down the range and re-write its rules. I wonder if the editors would like to take a crack at this, since they are convinced of wrong-doing, and obviously know the right way to run a shooting range.

--Reference: Blue Trail Range

Paper's call for mutual tolerance ignores its own attacks on gun owners

That these ivory tower infants presume to teach, yet display such appalling disregard for fundamental principles of liberty, makes their advocacy journalistic malpractice of the lowest order. That they influence public opinion, at least among the ignorant to the benefit of the opportunistic, demonstrates common ground and agreement are impossible to attain. [More]

I'd say the Prozi anti-gunners at The Hartford Courant could stand some education, but that presupposes getting past their fanaticism, ignorance and ethical shortcomings...

Exercising Options

Veilleux, who wrote an op-ed that appeared in The Hartford Courant this week in which he raised the prospect of leaving the state, said the company doesn’t have any such “definite plans.” But if Malloy follows through on his promise to ban the purchase and sale of AR-15 rifles, the centerpiece of the company’s business, he said leaving could become an option. [More] 

And not leaving could not be an option.

Tinkling With Mike McCune

On a slope of loose rock the ground was so heavily littered with spent bullets that when a member of our group dragged his walking stick, the ground tinkled.

I picked up a silver-colored bullet 1½ inches long. If this was left by a hunter, he must have been looking for water buffalo.

"Authorized Journalist" Mike McCune doesn't know the difference between a shell casing and a spent bullet, nor apparently that that indicates where the shots were fired from, not where they hit. And Mike, I'd love to see you go after a water buffalo with what sounds like a varmint round.

Who better to have an absolutist opinion than the most ignorant among us? Sounds like a good reason to close a range to me.

Why not let the lunatics run the asylum? Look how well they're running The Hartford Courant.

Come on, Mike, 'fess up: it wasn't the ground that tinkled, it was you.

The tinklers are making this an expensive fight. Here's how you can help:
(Everyone)

...Donate today by check, payable to Save Blue Trail Range, Inc. and mail to the Treasurer, Buddy Niezgorski, 58 Walnut Lane, Wallingford, CT, 06492 or visit the website and hit the “Pay” button to direct you to a Paypal account for donations to this fund.

(Locals)

Write letters to the editor of all of your local newspapers supporting the Blue Trail Range...Call your radio and television stations supporting the Blue Trail Range.

[Via Jason A]

Hartford Passes Criminal Immunity Law

The Hartford city council passed an ordinance Monday allowing the city to sue gun owners if they fail to report their weapon lost or stolen and the gun is used in a crime in Hartford.

With gun violence plaguing city streets, Mayor Eddie A. Perez and members of the council decided they could not wait for legislation pending at the General Assembly to help control the problem.

I don't know why not--it's not like they can require "prohibited persons" to report guns lost or stolen from them--since they're not allowed to have guns and can't legally own them, being forced to report that they'd had one in their possession would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

I posted a comment over at The Courant and hope others join me.

We're the Only Ones Protected Enough

More importantly, however, Yocher had a history of domestic violence. He lived in Naugatuck, the town next to Waterbury, and his neighbors there had reportedly called police about disturbances at the home where Yocher lived with his wife and children. Yet it appears that Yocher’s status as a policeman protected him from being arrested. And under a Connecticut law, passed just two months before the murder of Tommy Stuart, police were required to seize any firearms in the possession of a domestic abuse suspect. Yocher still had his guns, however, including the semiautomatic pistol he used to kill Tommy Stuart before killing himself. [More]

I guess I'm perplexed as to why the author finds the Hartford Courant being police state apologist punks "startling."  Winning the Pulitzer is hardly the final word on integrity.  Just ask Stalin's PR flack or WaPo's award-winning plagiarist.

[Via Michael G]

‘Lanza gun shop’ violations report confirms old news, misses real story

Funny, though, how the “new” report fails to address how The Hartford Courant was ready to hit "publish" the second the raid team hit the doors. Perhaps that's not newsworthy, nor is the fact that ATF only seems to use an "ongoing criminal investigations" excuse when they want to stonewall Congress, as opposed to when they want to get some publicity that portrays themselves as heroes of public safety? [More]

Today's Gun Rights Examiner report shows the difference between professional "Authorized Journalists/legitimate media/real reporters" and mere unworthy #justabloggers.

The Sounds of Silence

Over at the Hartford Courant... [More]

Clueless in Connecticut

"My understanding was that this ceremony was strictly a labor event," Blumenthal told the Hartford Courant. "If I had known the details, I wouldn’t have gone. … [More]

Ri...ight.

Like you can just make up some bull****, invite him and he'll show.

Funny how he didn't try to disavow things until he'd been exposed. Then he lies, changes the subject to redirect, and the DSM helps him get away with it. 

That's the Marxist MO. Lather, rinse, repeat. Amazing anyone is deluded enough to fall for it...

[Via Jess]

Called Out on a Callout

A pet peeve is "readers" who aren't actually readers, and who glom on to a headline or an isolated highlight and presume that's enough to condemn the article and the writer as unprincipled betrayers and worse. That's the case with a callout in my "Rights Watch column, "I Will Not Comply," in both the print and digital edition of the September issue of GUNS.

Understand that I submit articles months in advance of the publication sent to subscribers and newsstands, and have absolutely no layout input or control. That said, let's look at context, which you can read for yourself in either the above-linked iPaper version or on the website preview copy:

“[T]he bottom line is the state must try to enforce the law,” The Hartford Courant railed, noting “scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police. 

“If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences,” the editors, who had no personal skin in the enforcement game, proclaimed.

Read the whole article. I was condemning that statement, not endorsing it.

Over the years I have consistently challenged those who advocate "Enforce existing gun laws" by asking if they would also urge the government to "Enforce existing Intolerable Acts."