Who should you vote for?

As a general rule, I always ask that you do not vote for an attorney to preside in any legislative position. There should be a clear difference between the people that serve in the Legislature and those that serve in the Judicial System. These two systems were specifically designed for the sole purpose of having a respectable system of “Checks and Balances”. When the two become entwined, there can only be bad things to come of it. The reason should be clear… but sometimes it is necessary to explain to those that cannot follow the basics.

First, in order to become an attorney, one must prove to their professors that they have NO MORAL COMPASS. This is defined as having ethical issues that would cloud the attorney’s ability to represent either side to the fullest. An attorney must be able to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic and whistle Dixie … both with equal enthusiasm. Therefore, an attorney must first prove that, in their eyes, there is no right or wrong; no good or bad; no boundaries to prevent any aspect of their argument.

Second, attorneys become Judges [or at least hope to; someday]. When behind the bench, they make a solemn oath to never allow the truth to get in the way. It is not about “Right or Wrong”, it is all about who gives the best argument to the case. That argument is usually based on how much money each side can continue to bring into the system. I once heard a Judge in Austin Texas proudly state that she would intentionally give custody of a child to the parent with the least possible resources simply because it would encourage the other parent to continue the litigation. In other words, the longer the case can be kept in the court system the more money to be made by the courts [and its jesters]. It’s not about right or wrong, it is about how much money the litigants can bring to the court.

Third: attorneys, whom become Judges, like to get even for losses while being attorneys. This, often times, comes in the form of “Legislation from the Bench”; A technique that allows for the judge to write (or re-write) laws that are not appropriate but require large sums of money from the general public to correct (Money that the attorneys and judges share gratuitously). In today’s courts, it is not about innocence or guilt; it is about how much money the litigants can bring to the court. I once had an attorney explain this by saying that it is cheaper to plea guilty, or take “Nolo contendere”, than to plea innocent because the cost of a plea of innocence would require long court battles with extensive witnesses and would, “most assuredly”, be “Cost Prohibitive”. In other words; some people cannot afford to be innocent.

Fourth, attorneys that become Legislators can then write laws that are ambiguous and confusing so as to be left to the interpretation of the Judges and Attorneys that feel so comfortable in distorting and “bastardizing” the laws that are written. For example: The average length of time spent in jail for a convicted felon that commits a crime with a firearm in Washington DC is about 14 days. This is because the politicians in that town were lawyers that wrote a local law that would over-rule the Federal penalty of 20 years (20x360 days) to a local penalty of “Up to 40 Years”. Although it was presented as “being tough on crime”, the law actually allows judges to invoke penalties as little as “0” days. This is because the strict definition of “Up to 40” is defined as anything from 0 to 14400 days… the standard being about 14 days. In an opposing example: Trial Lawyers from the State of Texas despise the adoption of the “Castle Doctrine”. The Castle Doctrine establishes that you do not have to retreat when threatened and you may stay and fight for what is Right… even if you have to use deadly force to protect yourself or your property. The Castle Doctrine also states that, “if you are justified in using force, or deadly force, under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code, then you are exempt from any liability". Trial attorneys are furious with the castle doctrine because it, “does not allow for adequate interpretation or adequate discussion in open court”. In other words, it did not allow for enough ambiguousness for lengthy discussion (at your expense) in open court (at your expense) for attorneys to get their fair share of the loot (at your expense). The question should be: if you defend yourself (home, family, etc) from criminals, then what is there to discuss???

Fifth: The beauty of “repeat offenders” is that they keep coming back. Please note that repeat offenders rarely have the money to defend themselves, so the general public is obligated to provide these funds. Also note that the general public [taxpayer] is then left with the bill for both the prosecution and the defense of repeat offenders. And, as I said before, the beauty of a repeat offender is that they are a sure bet for “Job Security” if you are a judge or an attorney. Therefore, laws that appear harsh, but end up soft, help to keep the endless job opportunities open for a “Never-Ending” flood of repeat offenders that perpetuate the legal system. Laws that allow for the use of Deadly Force are contrary to this job security as death is a permanent issue. Dead Offenders have never continued their lifestyle…. “lifestyle”…lol. What adds insult to injury for attorneys and judges is the idea that there is no liability for a justified use of deadly force. This prevents judges and attorneys from getting their fair share of what the criminal was trying to obtain illegally.

Therefore, voting for someone that is a practicing attorney to represent you in the legislature is a vote for softer penalties, more repeat offenders, increase crime, ambiguous laws, and a perverse concept that innocence is directly proportional to your financial abilities. Instead, I recommend that you Vote for those that make laws that everyone must live with (even the ones that are writing the laws). Let the attorneys then interpret the laws that free men make and not the laws that these attorneys intentionally write to meet their own needs and desires.

Pistol Actions??

There is a lot of issue concerning Pistol Actions. First, Texas State Law refers to Pistol actions as: 1. Semi Auto, 2. Single Action Revolver, and 3. Double Action Revolver. Even the NRA has it listed in its training manual this way.

There are actually 4 types of Pistol Actions:

Single Action Only [SAO]
Double Action/Single Action [DA/SA] Sometimes called Traditional Double-Action
Double Action Only [DAO]
Striker Action [Safe Action]


When all is said and done, there really are only two separate Action Types: Double Action, where the trigger pulls the hammer back and releases it, and Single Action, where the trigger simply releases that action.

The problem is that certain competitions groups have a problem placing the "Striker Action" pistol. I think the bottom line is that the Striker Action pistol (essentially a "pinball" action pistol") requires that the striker be moved from a resting position to a position of "Potential Energy" state before it is released to the "Kinetic Energy" state... essentially making it a double action "ACTION" based on the fact that the trigger first "Cocks" the firing pin and then releases the pin for firing (2 actions=Double action).

The issue is the fact that the Safe Action or Striker Action pistols does not use a Hammer to hit the firing pin. Instead it uses a pulling/spring-loaded action with the firing pin only (much like a pinball machine). Because it eliminates the Hammer, groups like the IDPA tend to have difficulty placing it in a category based on Stock, Enhanced, or other specialty.

I think the bottom line here is the fact that groups like the IDPA are filled with "Gun Bigots" that will find any excuse to eliminate, or reduce, the competition.