SHOT Show TV 2009

-- Post From My iPhone

True Colors

This from NRO on Attorney General-designate Eric "Brown Shirt" Holder:

First, he is doubtless only trying to nominate Holder because the Democrats have at least a 58-42 advantage in the Senate. Only nine cabinet nominations have been denied by the Senate in all of American history. While others have been withdrawn for various reasons, you can count on your hands the number that failed when the president decides to demand a vote.

The fact that Obama is willing to ignore the “Do No Harm” rule that usually accompanies cabinet picks shows that he is going to push the envelope on a number of issues.

This nomination might also shed light on the kind of policies Obama will pursue. Despite Obama’s new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.’s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes. Holder also has far-left views on unrestricted abortion, and opposes the death penalty. And, in a war on terror, Holder believes that all the rights that U.S. citizens have in civilian courts should be extended to foreign terrorists captured abroad.

This Week's Ice Storm

I'm hoping to catch up with my apparent personal ice storm in Tulsa in a couple of hours!

This time, I have batteries...and extra ammunition!

SHOT Show TV stuff...

Later this week I'm going to "high tea" in Denver. I don't think it has anything to do with illicit substances, but one never knows, does one?

Was really impressed with the Fromt Range Gun Club...when I finally move to to my property overlookin Nowhereville it'll be super close.

Watched The Wild Bunch for the umteenth time last night...now that I'm older I have to say I see the movie a little differently than I did years ago...sigh...I'll talk about it some on the podcast this week.





-- Post From My iPhone

Catching Up on Catching Up

First, now that I'm out of the tundra, some words from Brother Ted Nugent:

There is no bigger advocate for criminal control than me, so long as we do not go about manufacturing criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people.

Enter New York Giants player Plaxico Burress. He accidentally blew a hole in his leg with his Glock handgun while in a New York City nightclub. His list of crimes against responsible gun handling is too long to share with you here. He's a Numbnut of the Year award winner.

Ah, but this is even more idiotic: New York City is going to throw the Sullivan Gun Law book at Burress for merely having a handgun.

Only a select few people are given permits to carry a gun in the Big Apple. For this, Burress could get quite a few years at the Cross Bars Hotel.

Criminal thugs, of course, are not deterred from carrying guns by New York City's draconian gun laws. Mayor Blowhard Bloomberg and other Big Apple elected buffoons who forbid NYC citizens from defending themselves are complicit in turning innocent, law-abiding citizens into defenseless victims.

By review: Gun-free zones, are a murderer's dream zone.

I went to some lengths in the podcast this week to make the same point — Burress deserves our support, because the New York City law is in direct violation of our Constitution. Period. Exclamation point!

My pal Don Worsham turned me on to this essay on Law Dog's blog, a "meditation" on stopping power:

To my mind, none of these [stopping power] formulas are capable of quantifying the most important part of stopping power.

This is not to say that your choice of sidearm and your choice of calibre aren't important in your search for "stopping power" ... but there is another variable that is much more important than bullet size and velocity.

You.

It doesn't matter how big a hole the bullet makes ... if you don't carry the gun that fires it.

It doesn't matter how fast that bullet is going ... if you never practice with the gun that fires it.

Amen to that! I know you're waiting for me to tell you what Marshal Halloway and I were in the frozen tundra looking at...sorry! You will be amazed and surprised, but not today!

Mr Smarty Pants Screws Up

Major New England ice storm...no power...no water...1 SureFire...no extra batteries...sucks to be sure...


-- Post From My iPhone

The Slippery Slope

Here's a good article on how the Brits lost their gun rights. I thought it made sense to list the seven points on that slope:

X. The Causes of British Decline--and Some Danger Signs for Slippery Slopes

What makes a civil liberty particularly vulnerable to a slippery slope? This section discusses some particular factors that have made gun rights, like most of the rest of the freedoms guaranteed in the American Bill of Rights, particularly vulnerable in Great Britain: its structure of government, and its civil liberties organizations. Before addressing those topics, this Essay will consolidate the factors that have been touched upon in earlier sections.

A. Seven Key Factors

The first factor that undermined the British right to arms was a technological change when revolvers came to be seen by some persons as much more dangerous than previous weapons.[250] This same phenomenon can be seen in the treatment of other technological advances, such as the automobile, which from the 1920s onward, has often been treated by the United States Supreme Court as a "Constitution-free zone", where searches and seizures in contravention of normal Fourth Amendment standards may take place.[251](p.448)

The second factor that undermined the British right to arms was the role of the media, with its lurid and exaggerated accounts of gun crime in the 1880s, or its vicious denunciations of recreational shooters in the 1990s. This suggests that slippery slopes may be less dangerous when the right in question is supported by the press, as free speech and abortion rights are in the modern United States. Conversely, slippery slopes may be more dangerous when the press is indifferent, as in the case of federalism and states' rights, or actively hostile, as in the case of gun rights.

The third undermining factor was the development of government mistrust of the people, as in the 1920 fears of Bolshevism. We may hear echoes of this today in the United States government's fears the militia movement and its allies. Certainly, however, the dangers posed by the modern militia movement are much smaller than the dangers posed by Soviet communism and its United States agents in the 1950s or by violent anarcho-syndicalism in the early twentieth century. Consequently, the related suppressions of civil liberties have been smaller.[252]

The major "subversive" group in the United States today is not anarcho-syndicalists, militia members, or Fenians, but drug users. They are "traitors in the War on Drugs" according to much public rhetoric, and according to the United States' moralist-in-chief William Bennett, public beheadings of drug users would be a good idea. Over the last two decades, no force has been more important in eroding the civil liberties of all Americans, drug users and abstainers alike, than the War on Drugs.[253]

The shifting of the burden of proof, both at law and in popular discussion, was the fourth factor degrading the British right to arms. Rather than the government having to prove that a particular gun-owner or a particular type of gun was dangerous, the gun-owner began to have to prove his "good reason," and the government began deciding to outlaw weapons that the government did not think anyone outside the government had a good reason to own.

The "added authority" problem described by Schauer was of great significance. Once the people agreed that Parliament had the authority to decide whether to ban any type of gun, or to decide how people could acquire guns, a wide range of restrictions became intellectually conceivable. Even more significantly, once the police were given authority over licensing, they were able to use that authority to impose many additional controls, and to reduce the number of licensed shooters. In addition, Parliament's allowing the Home Office to ban weapons by administrative edict has resulted in certain weapons such as swordsticks being banned for no good reason.(p.449)

This suggests that often the most important aspect of a particular restriction on civil liberty, at least in terms of slippery slope dangers, is not the content of the restriction, but who will decide its contours. For example, the 1994 Congressional ban on "assault weapons" contained a complete definition of what an "assault weapon" is, and gave the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms no discretionary authority to add guns to the banned list. Thus, the potential future expansion of the law was constrained. Conversely, the most important aspect of Canada's latest gun control law, Bill C-68, is not that it bans some handguns, but that it gave the Prime Minister and his appointees the authority to ban any other weapon they want, without asking Parliamentary approval. Thus, how much "added authority" one control creates for future controls is a fifth important factor in estimating slippery slope dangers.

Additionally, how many people are there who care to resist infringement of a right? Few politicians seriously propose a total gun ban in the United States because there are seventy million gun-owning households--about half the population. But only about four percent of the British population legally owns guns--a much smaller interest group. If, over the course of generations, the percentage of a population that is interested in a right can be gradually reduced, stricter controls become more politically feasible, and the stricter controls can further reduce the long-term number of people who exercise their rights.

This suggests the long-term importance of young people exercising their rights. If high school newspapers have large staffs that fearlessly report the truth, the future of the First Amendment is better protected. If, conversely, laws prevent teenagers from target shooting or hunting, the future of the Second Amendment is endangered.
A final potential reason that a polity might move further down a slippery slope is that the polity sees the previous step as being useful. For instance, if a City Council imposed a 10 p.m. curfew for sixteen-year-olds, and night-time crime perpetrated by sixteen-year-olds fell significantly and immediately, the city council would likely consider extending the curfew to seventeen-year-olds. In the United States, there is no shortage of studies claiming that laws tightening gun controls (like the Brady Act) or laws relaxing gun controls, like laws allowing trained citizens to carry a concealed handgun for protection, reduce crime. Scholars such as John Lott, Gary Kleck, Arthur Kellerman, Garen Wintemute, and others, carry on a steady debate about the empirical benefits of various firearms policies. Anyone who follows the firearms debate seriously will soon encounter one of these social scientists on a television interview. The gun control debate in Canada likewise includes scholars such as Gary Mauser and Thomas Gabor, who make various empirical research claims for or against particular gun policies.

From an American point of view, one of the truly odd characteristics of (p.450)the British gun debate is the apparent irrelevance of social science. To the extent that any research is cited, the research is from North America, or involves transnational comparisons. Nobody cites British quantitative research because none exists other than raw crime statistics collected by the Home Office.

The raw statistics do make some facts clear: when Britain had no gun control (early in the twentieth century) or moderately-administered gun control (in the middle of the century), Britain had virtually no gun crime. Today, Britain literally has substantially more gun crime, as well as more violent crime in general. From 1776 until very recently, the United States has suffered a much higher violent crime rate than Britain, regardless of whether British gun laws were liberal or strict. In recent years, however, the once-wide gap in violent crime has disappeared. This gap was closed by a moderate drop in American crime rates, coupled with a sharp rise in the British rates. One does not hear British gun control advocates touting statistics about how crime rates fell after previous gun laws were enacted.[254]

Rather, the advocacy is based on the "inherent danger of guns," and on the "horror" of Dunblane and Hungerford. Even though Britain shows that demonstrated empirical success is not essential for movement down a slippery slope, success does help. The drop in New York City's crime rate following Mayor Rudolph Guliani's aggressive policing policies, which were roundly condemned by the New York Civil Liberties Union, has encouraged other cities to adopt similar policies. This, in turn, made Guliani's brand of authoritarian conservatism an important element in the national Republican party's thinking about crime policy.

There are certainly other factors that may affect the potential danger of a given slippery slope. The seven factors that this Essay has discussed, however, could be usefully analyzed in many different situations to examine the relative risks of a slippery slope argument. In addition to these seven factors there are several other factors that made the right to arms so vulnerable in Britain--and which also have implications for civil liberties in the United States. It is to these additional factors that this Essay now turns.

Range Time!

Spent some time yesterday at the really super Front Range Gun Club in Loveland, CO, with the Para USA GI Expert and my second Para 9mm Lt. Commander.

Good news first-the $599 GI was fiercely accurate with WW 230-gr ball. At 7 yards it was 150 rounds into 2 ragged holes...one in the "upper B zone" head and the other center mass.

Bad news was I had a series of new gun problems - FTFs (1 per mag, roughly), and hammer follow (1 per 3 mags). I suspect those are break in issues...I took the gun out of the bag, oiled it and started shooting. At about 120 rounds I started getting light primer strikes.

I'm going to be talking to the Para engineers next week...my T&E gun is literally the first one out there and they sent it to me for evaluation.

Bottom line? Hey, it's under $600 bucks! Lemme see what the engineers say , and I'll follow up with another session.

OTOH, the 9mm alloy frame Lt Commander was boringly perfect...no runs, no hits, no errors. I was shooting WW ball and 123-gr Fiocci truncated cone stuff. The Fiocci with it's weird nose occasionally required a gentle touch when lowering the slide on a new mag, but shot extremely well. I forgot to bring the hot CorBon stuff...sorry!

Bottom line? I think I'll keep this one! Maybe shoot minor at the Single Stacks so I can be an object of derision.

You know, the more I shoot these low-end 1911s, the greater déjà vu I feel - it's 1978 all over again! FTF? Hammer follow? Hmmmmm...that sounds strangely familiar...

LOL? Still, this new gentle retro guns are 10 times the gun my first steel Commander, Rex , was.

-- Post From My iPhone

Crooks!

Remember months ago when I said you can't run a lemonaide stand in northern Illinois without being a part of the large-scale criminal enterprise that has run the state for the better part of a century?

So you're surprised? At what?

And yes, President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama is likely a crook as well...otherwise, how did he live in one of the most expensive cities in America on his $10K a year as a "community organizer?" Go to Harvard? Arrange to have a now-convicted felon buy half his house? Survive — and thrive — in a cesspool of crooked politics? Didn't talk to the governor about filling his own Senate seat? Yeah, right. All those expensive lessons for the Obama kiddies?

At least we won't have to worry about the new President doing a Clinton with an intern under the desk...he has the mainstream media to perform that function.

InstaPundit Poll on Obama's Comments on Guns...

See the results here.

83% of the respondents answered, "Are you kidding? I'm burying AR15s in the back yard."

Prescription Pistols?

A very good thing!

From MSNBC:

FDA approves handgun for the handicapped
Single-shot gun designed for those crippled by arthritis, muscular dystrophy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has accepted a conceptual, ergonomic 9mm handgun — designed for people crippled by arthritis, muscular dystrophy, or similar conditions that render them too weak to operate normal handguns — as a Class 1 Medical Device.

The single-shot gun, dubbed the Palm Pistol, is "an adaptive tool that allows someone otherwise incapable of handling a revolver or semiautomatic weapon to operate one," said Matthew Carmel of Constitution Arms, the New Jersey-based company developing the gun.

Thanks to the gun's designation as a medical device, doctors could eventually write prescriptions for it and then be reimbursed by Medicare.

Predictably, the moonbats are up in arms:

Gun control supporters are not happy about the FDA's decision. Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was nearly speechless when asked about it.

"This seems like a catastrophically bad decision from the FDA," said Everitt. "A gun is not a medical gadget. It's a tool used to take human life."

God forbid people at the most risk should be able to protect themselves! Good on Constitution Arms!

Leaving Las Vegas

Well, I lost big. Of my designated $10 gambling fund, I lost $6, then gave the remaining chit to my Sweetie, who proceeded to lose the rest of it.

I was hoping to finance our dinner at Bobby Flay's Mesa Grill (tuna, if you must know, and God's own chili relleno), but the penny slots refused to cooperate.

Gunwise, I note in the Chicago Sun Times this AM that President Elect Hussein Obama says we don't need to buy guns, since he believes in the Second Amendment:

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

Obama also reportedly promised that he will respect us all in the morning and that, on his proverbial word, he will do nothing...untoward...in any of our orifices.

Here's a much better gunny article from Richard Munday in the Times of London...at least some Brits get it!

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

Ho Ho Bang!!!

Marshal Halloway & I get Christmasy at the Bellagio...


-- Post From My iPhone

Another Day at the Office

-- Post From My iPhone

Old Vegas

-- Post From My iPhone

Another Misspent Evening in Sin City

We be in Vegas...

Producer Mike Long & PA Erin Ramsey in Tupelo Flash limo...



-- Post From My iPhone

Are All Sports Columnists Morons...

...or is John Feinstein at the Washington Post just a special case? In any case, logic isn't is strong point:

The owners and players should agree that players can't own handguns. That won't prevent players who like to hunt from hunting. If a player feels unsafe for any reason, he can ask his team to provide security -- all NFL teams have good-sized security forces, most of them retired law enforcement officials -- or they can hire their own security guards.

Now, let's not start screaming about the Second Amendment. To begin with, the amendment should be abolished -- a sensible interpretation of the amendment is that it was written to allow the people to raise a militia for protection and to hunt for food. Clearly no one needs to raise a militia these days, and those who hunt for a living can be licensed to do so.

It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the Second Amendment, but he first has to deal with a broken economy and the incredibly wrong-headed war started by his predecessor. What's more, the issue of gun rights causes almost as much screaming from the right as abortion rights, the irony being that those yelling the loudest about the right to life are usually those yelling almost as loud about their right to carry weapons that kill.

The Second Amendment isn't going to be abolished any time soon. That should not prevent the NFL -- and all sports leagues -- from taking handguns away from their players. It is no more unconstitutional to say players can't own guns than it is to say they must be subjected to drug testing when there is no evidence they have used drugs, or saying they can be fined for speaking their mind about officiating.

Worth Remembering!

From GunPundit:

The high-cap magazine term is a place where the pro-gun side allowed the other side to frame the debate. 20 and 30-round magazines aren’t “high” capacity, they’re “standard” capacity. But no one, and I mean no one, sees it that way.

Magazines and ammo will be the next battleground.

What the Moonbats are Saying About US

From Alternet:

Although the gun group unleashed everything in its arsenal to defeat Barack Obama and dozens of down ticket gun-control candidates, it lost by a margin as historic as the war chest it opened in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment. Despite expending nearly $7 million in a national fear campaign, NRA-endorsed candidates lost 80 percent of their races against gun-control candidates. More than 90 percent of candidates endorsed by the NRA's nemesis, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, won their races. If 2008 was, in the NRA's own words, "arguably the most important year in its history," then the election results suggest that the gun group is arguably the most overhyped and impotent special-interest lobby in the country. The NRA even got its chamber cleaned in its home state of Virginia.

The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most underreported stories of the election. This is largely because it was immediately overshadowed by the trendy postelection narrative of spiking gun sales and runs on assault weapons. In recent weeks, it seems as if every TV news program and newspaper in the country has featured some variation on the following story: Anxious Americans are cleaning out their local gun stores in anticipation of a.) Barack Obama's radical anti-gun agenda; b.) social chaos engendered by economic collapse; or c.) both.

No doubt thousands of paranoid gun owners have purchased Glocks and AR-15 assault rifles out of such fears. And it is true that the economic crisis has fueled an interest in personal protection and even Northern Idaho-style survivalism. But sensational stories about booming holiday-season gun sales obscure a more profound phenomenon: the coalescence of a new consensus, joined by the majority of the nation's gun owners, in favor of what gun controllers call "commonsense reform." A subtext of this phenomenon is the evaporation, first witnessed in 2006 and reinforced last month, of the idea that guns are a sure thing conservative wedge issue.

Of course he's full of shit, but read the whole thing anyway! And GO BUY SOME AMMO!

Leaving MO in the Broad Daylight...

...and just ahead of the snow. I can't imagine why I once thought travel was romantic...

Been at Midway USA for a bunch of reasons...one was talking to the product manager for the full scoop on AR-Stoner magazines. Based on that talk and Midway's willingness to share ALL info with me, I can give an even more positive 2-Thumbs-Up on these private branded C-Products! 30 rounders due in on 12/07...be quick!

On truth, given the economic conditions, I'm more concerned about b-HO's impending spate of executive orders than a new AWB before the 2010 Midterms...I am stocking up on mags that come from overseas (can you spell "X-D?")...if you're down on your 7.62 X 39 or 5.45 X 39, now might be a prudent time to stock up as well...

Brady is listing their hoped for Number Uno Christmas present as "closing the gunshow loophole" big time, as in ending private sales period...might also be a good time to do your shopping at a gunshow (if you state still allows private gunshow sales, which CO doesn't) or from classifed ads or f-t-f locally.

I'm doing a "triage" of my guns,which I'll be talking about on next week's podcast. Be sure to listen to TODAY'S special podcast on THE BEST DEFENSE!!!!!

Time to fly...


-- Post From My iPhone

Post Turkey Day Enthusiasm

After four days of serious rest, I'm feeling decidedly human again! I slept late, read, didn't turn on the computer in my office — well, not very much — took daily long hikes with Alf the Wonder Beagle and my Sweetie and avoided anything that looked like stress. As a result, I'm now convinced I will actually survive December and SHOT Show January! I am always surprised at how much mental energy a day of filming takes, not to mention that you're usually on a dusty, windy location somewhere and you don't get to sit down much, if at all, for 12 hours. The frenetic pace since July ground me up pretty badly.

I'm excited because lots of super cool things are going on...obviously THE BEST DEFENSE is going to be a paradigm-breaker. I've also just gotten the approvals for that spectaular 10th season of SHOOTING GALLERY I mentioned a while back...we'll be going extra-spicy for this one! It'll be filmed in 2009, premiering Quarter 1 2010. Plus, there's a good chance that Series #4, which I can't tell you a THING about (except that yes, it will go bang), will be green-lighted before the end of the year. Series #5, a really exciting project with Rob Pincus (and that's ALL I can say right now!), looks good for 2010; Series #6 is waiting for just the right moment to be birthed.

Bookwise, I've approved the new cover for TRAIL SAFE and the set text should move to final proofing in the next two weeks. This is the original book with a bit of editing from me, including with a new forward I'm writing. It will be joined mid-year by a companion DVD that focuses on the survivial mindset and choosing appropriate hardware for the backcountry. 2009 will also have a new edition of OVER THE EDGE with a newly written forward that brings the book up to date. Finally, I sketched out the rough outlines of a new gun book and companion DVD that will be my 2009 writing project, along with finishing and publishing FIVE TO GO. I'll also be writing the forward for a new training book from Rob and Mike Janich, based on our work on TBD...it will definitely be a must-have for your training library!

There will be some significant changes in DOWN RANGE, too, but I don't want to get into those just yet. I believe Marshal Halloway and I will have some big announcements at SHOT.

So there!