En la guerra, el estatus del soldado como combatiente mejora con el número de enemigos que consigue eliminar. En una guerra tan cruenta y turbia como la de Vietnam, los marines norteamericanos llevaban una cuenta exacta de sus víctimas (el llamado body count) y muchos se enorgullecían de ello. Especialmente los sniper, como se conoce en EEUU a los francotiradores.

"Esa sensación de poder, de mirar a alguien siguiendo el cañón del rifle y pensar: Vaya, puedo cargarme a este tío", escribió en una carta el soldado James Hebron. David Nelson, que también fue sniper en Vietnam, contaba con decenas de muertes en el bolsillo y un alcance mortífero, de unos 1.100 metros. "La suya fue realmente una gran actuación", afirma la historiadora británica Joanna Bourke en el libro Sed de sangre: Historia íntima del combate cuerpo a cuerpo en las guerras del siglo XX, editado por Crítica.

Agazapado y siempre camuflado, el francotirador hace un delicado ejercicio de constancia, temple y precisión hasta que dispara contra su objetivo. Se saben un peligro mortal, invisible y capaz de infundir terror. Nelson aprendió el oficio, "una posición muy individual y potencialmente fuera de control" -escribe Bourke- porque, para él, el espíritu del combate residía en "matar limpiamente, de forma rápida, con eficacia, sin malicia o brutalidad".

Sigilosos y certeros

Aunque llegaban con la cabeza lúcida, a muchos soldados les costaba mantener los escrúpulos. El propio Nelson descubrió que matar civiles era inevitable. "Un impacto limpio era un logro", decía él, que castigaba "con calma y la cabeza fría". En 1971, fue derribado y olvidado para siempre en la abrupta jungla de Laos.

En Vietnam del Norte, Carlos Hatchcock era conocido como White Feather (en referencia a la pluma blanca con que adornaba su gorra). Al igual que Nelson, Hatchcock se había apartado de los tiroteos frenéticos de la infantería para unirse a la brigada sniper, donde aprendió los secretos de la mira telescópica. Era pura precisión: actuaba en solitario y derribó a 93 enemigos (aunque se especula que fueron más de 300). Uno de sus tiros hizo blanco a 2.550 metros, récord de una baja a larga distancia hasta 2002. Los vietnamitas, desesperados, llegaron a ofrecer unos 50.000 dólares de la época por su cabeza, pero nadie pudo darle caza. Ni siquiera los counterspiner o cazadores de francotiradores.

El francotirador, que es miembro de las fuerzas armadas y por tanto combatiente legítimo, está llamado a causar daños innecesarios. Los norvietnamitas los utilizaron por primera vez en 1965, cuando asesinaron desde una montaña al jefe de una unidad estadounidense en el valle de la Drang. Además, el tirador consiguió escapar, dejando a la tropa desmoralizada e insegura. Y eran realmente efectivos: durante los años que duró la guerra, los sniper norteamericanos empleaban un promedio de 1,32 balas para abatir a un adversario, mientras que el soldado de infantería necesitaba de unos 20.000 disparos para causar el mismo daño.

Masacres planificadas

Los estadounidenses no duraron en utilizarlos para hostigar, emboscar y acosar a la población civil. Ocurrió en tragedias planificadas y dirigidas por el mando militar de EEUU como las de My Lai o Hué, donde los francotiradores dispararon desde las aldeas para que los soldados devolvieran el fuego y comenzaran así una masacre contra los civiles.

Por si fuera poco, Vietnam se había convertido en "un campamento para adolescentes creciditos sin ningún tipo de control. Las bromas, las juergas, desnudar a los camaradas para bañarles el abdomen con cerveza y el lanzamiento de muebles formaban parte del buen humor de los chicos después de una cacería exitosa", lo que propició el culto y la gloria para los sniper, explica Bourke en su libro. Tras la guerra, Hatchcock -que hoy es considerado un héroe de guerra y una leyenda dentro de los infantes de marina de EEUU- reflexionó en su autobiografía sobre su estancia en Vietnam: "Nunca gocé con matar a alguien. Pero debía hacerlo con esos bastardos... podían matar a muchos de los nuestros".

Las atrocidades estadounidenses, al descubierto

En 2006, ‘Los Angeles Times' publicó un artículo en el que denunciaba que la muerte de civiles por soldados estadounidenses fue mucho mayor de lo que mostraban los informes publicados por el Pentágono en los setenta. Igual que en Irak, se descubrieron irregularidades en todas las divisiones del ejército y se acusó a 203 soldados de abusar de civiles. Sólo 23 fueron declarados culpables. El periódico estudió documentos sobre los que el ejército había levantado el secreto oficial, procedentes del Grupo de Trabajo de Crímenes de Guerra de Vietnam y los Archivos Nacionales en College Park. Poco después, funcionarios del Gobierno retiraron las copias de las estanterías públicas al sostener que estaban exentos de las leyes federales de revelación de información. Los expedientes demostraban la existencia de siete masacres entre 1967 y 1971 (no figura la matanza de My Lai de 1968) en las que murieron al menos 137 civiles vietnamitas.

Fuente: Jesús Centeno. Público. El orgullo del francotirador.

19 years after this happened... (Ed Note: If you don't like to see blood, I suggest you watch)

Malarchuk accidentally shot himself in the chin with a .22 caliber rifle.  According to his wife, he had been hunting rabbits when he placed the butt of the gun on the ground between his legs and the gun discharged.

He is recovering from his injury at Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno.

Here are some theories:

• Clint Malarchuk is the Terminator
• Clint Malarchuk is the Highlander
  • As Steve Tuttle came careening at the net he can be heard screaming "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
• Clint Malarchuk is a hero
  • His power is that no matter how many neck injuries he sustains he will never die.
• Clint Malarchuk is actually Chuck Norris

Molto interessantel’idea di quest' ASG, configurabile a piacimento, con la possibilità di  smontare e sostituire i pezzi della replica con altri intercambiabili…

Molto probabilmente la casa produttrice sarà JG (Jing Gong) o DBoys, avendo cosi un fucile low cost ma dalle buone caratteristiche tecniche.

Every girl under the age of 12 gets a free fully-automatic assault rifle! No questions asked.

Thinking clearly we must make a well informed decision to select the right person for the job. We must elect someone who will follow the law as it is written, including the 2nd Ammendment to the United States Constitution. This Ammendment has been under attack from every misinformed and misrepresented political opinion willing to decieve us from our cities to our capitol, in order to claim the Presidential Elect, Senate Elect, Rep. Elect positions. They will stop at nothing to become the winner. If this ammendment is redefined then all the other ammendments will be subject to change and redefined at the will of a select few. Talk about DANGEROUS!!

Beware and vote your conscious in November for you decide the fate of our country, our freedoms, and our rights. When politicians are seeking election they will do and say whatever sounds right to the particular audience in order to be victorious. They will claim they are hunters and are pro gun, but the truth is in their past. Politicians have a past of votes distinguishing pro from con on certain cases. Firearm cases are easy to follow and can be found on the NRAILA site. This is what they do so all the information is there, truthful and unbiased. Believe it or not.

Don't be fooled by the word of mouth from a politician of any persuation. Do we need to know what the definition of "is" is? Do we need to know what the re-definition of the 2nd Ammendment is? NO, it was written for all as the other ammendments were. It is clearly cut and dry. Change one ammendment and it leaves open all the others for change as they see fit. We can't let anyone take away our right of self defense. It's your God given right. No one else will be there when your life is on the line. They say it will reduce crime....but the truth is that the fear of being shot and killed definitely alters the criminals actions by going where they are safe from being injured, or killed during their commission of a felony.

Why do you think that the largest cities in the US have the highest crime rates? What do you think would happen if every law abiding citizen in the city owned a firearm for self defense? Undoubtedly reduction, huge reduction of crime. There's no doubt about it. The felon would travel to the next available location where they won't put their life on the line everytime they commit a felony. It's common sense. Why doesn't everyone get it? How can they not?

Unfortunately the press doesn't print the occasions the gun saved a life, or the mear sight of the gun save a citizen from becoming a victim. It happens all the time, numerous times a day but is not reported. Instead the press reports a stabbing somewhere while showing an inset picture of a handgun. Brainwashing? No doubt. They try to link every crime to the gun, thereby producing the illusion of an evil inanimate object and its' distruction. Since this is a country where no one takes the blame but finds fault with everyone or everything else, identifying the root of the problem is definately not them but is the inanimate, heartless, brainless object.

So politicians tell you what you want to hear to get them on their side. They change their tune by local where it best serves to gather votes. We all aren't fooled but sometimes ignore it because they all do it. Well....there is truth to that, but we must take a stand. Are you in favor of Life? Are you Pro Life? Are you in favor of protecting Your Life? Are you in favor of protecting Your Liberty?

How you vote will decide how you, your family and all of us will live. Are you willing to let someone else decide your fate by eliminating your right to defend yourself and your family? The Police can't defend you because they are not proactive but are reactive. A crime must have been commited before they get involved. They come to the scene after the commission of the crime. They investigate what happened, how, and by who. None of this will deter crime because a conviction of a crime is only temporary until the jail is too crowded or the Parole Board frees them.

How much time is your life or your loved ones worth?

What do you think would happen if every Parole Board Member is held responsible of their decisions to approve parole? I believe there would be far less approvals if near none. That's the problem with this country, no one takes responsibility for what they've done. Blame it on medication, the gun, the baseball bat, the car.....etc.. How about we take the blame for our own actions. How about we think of the guy who isn't as well off as you, or living in a nice area as you. Take the time to think of how you would like to live and how you would like us all to live and then decide who the best candidate is.

Please don't disarm us of our right to protection nor the right to vote our mind. Please don't force us to live as you want to live since we all have that right to choose on our own. Some choose to commit crime, some chose to be victims, and some choose NOT to be the victim.

Support your own rights, each and every one of them. Allow us to choose ours and don't deny us that right.

Shoot Straight and make the Felon the Victim

Combat arms, published by Nexon, is a free to play (FTP) First Person Shooter game released on July 10^th, 2008.  Though their concept of a FTP team-based shooter is nothing new, the robust features and low system requirements make this appeal to a lot more people. 

After 2 hours of shooting, fragging, and purchasing new weapons, our team came away pleasantly surprised.  Combat Arms’ core is nothing like a game of a stature as Call of Duty 4 was- it lacks the diversity of squad-based action nor next-generation tactics or health generation and bullet-penetration.  Many would be surprised that this actually helps the game feel like a throwback to games such as Counter Strike. 

It was easy to quickly select and join a server, and only took about 2 minutes from the time I launched the game to the time that I had maneuvered throughout the games simple menu into a pre-made server. 

With everyone online mostly utilizing rifles such as the M16, many of the battles in the games’ unique environments are interesting.  It requires precision and stability to complete feats including headshots or laying down a line of perfect shots for a second as you wipe out your enemy, but once you’re being attacked by users armed with anti-tank warfare, you know it’s time to upgrade.

A collection of high-powered and wide variety of weaponry is essential to any good shooter, and Combat Arms’ doesn’t disappoint at all.  The guns are modeled, designed, and sound excellent with sounds of the burst stalls the victim with fear.  The guns’ sounds feel so realistic, and it seems as though the character you control is right beside you with its realism.

Furthermore, the selection of weaponry that the user can obtain is widespread.  Your character in the game can carry one primary weapon, along with one secondary and one melee weapon, alongside the user’s grenades.  Each weapon has its traits, much of it in regards to distance, instead of power, although that also comes into play often.  This would allow for easy tactical decisions if characters did not have the option to purchase a backpack to hold two additional primary weapons at the same time.

Although some users will stray off into 1on1 firefights, the game encourages players to use teamwork to their advantage through radar and how areas are designed, and it is eminent in many levels.  Many of the stages you battle through, you must use teamwork to get to the other team’s base with ease, as much of the time there will be enemies guarding their base, making it impassible by one.

Thrown weaponry and anti-tank missiles help the odds against multiple enemies, as each has its own abilities.  For example, the smoke grenade is helpful for cover, while gas grenades cover an area where users will quickly flee.  The only downsides to these thrown weapons are their disappointing blast radiuses, as well as the lack of grenades that could be primed, along with the annoying visible trip mines.     

At release, Nexon primed its first downloaders with approximately 9,000 credits, which is surprisingly enough to purchase about half of the game’s usable guns, while modifying scopes, buying a backpack and new armor- but all of this could only be used for one single day.  Hopefully soon Nexon will make the change and reduce the prices, although users can purchase weapons for longer than a single day, for significant discounts.  As of now, weapons cost about 1,000 credits per day, and an average player will make a mere 100 credits per day.

While the variety and fantastic weaponry stand out, the character models and animations are not impressive.  The animations are jerky, and few in number in many situations.  It’s difficult to tell if your enemy is taking damage until they fall to the ground defeated, due to the lack of wound animations.  Especially in close-quarters combat, planned ambushes can go terribly wrong as it may seem as though you are hitting them, although you may not be any close, and there’s no visible way to tell.

There is nothing in Combat Arms that is anything new in terms of graphics, as the environments and character models look sub-par compared to other games of today.  Though these don’t damage the user, some maps have steam pipes that will release steam into the users face, temporarily obscuring their vision, whilst bullet holes will glow for the first few moments before they fade, and weapons will reflect light depending on their defining aspects.  But with this sub-par graphics, come extremely low system specifications, so the game can be ran on an older PC and still hold a strong 60 FPS (frames per second).

All-in-all, this game looks very strong from the beginning, despite its graphical issues.  Although this scours the game now, updates are coming weekly on many aspects of the game, so you can expect most bugs to be solved in minimal time.  The Gameplay is more than adequate, and the planned community features that Nexon is planning to release will make this game one to get- and it’s free.

Expect stage 2 of the review, Analysis, coming soon within this month. 

State v. Goyette, 407 A.2d 1104 (Me. 1979).

Page 1104

407 A.2d 1104

STATE of Maine
v.
Martial C. GOYETTE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 9, 1979.

Page 1106

John D. McElwee, Dist. Atty., Thomas L. Goodwin, Deputy Dist. Atty. (orally), Houlton, for plaintiff.

Paine & Lynch by Martha J. Harris, Errol K. Paine (orally), Bangor, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C. J., POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ., and DUFRESNE, A. R. J.

DUFRESNE, A. R. J. 1

Martial C. Goyette, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by complaint

Page 1107
2 with the violation of 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467 3 in that "on or about the 24th day of November 1977 in Township 17, Range 4 County of Aroostook and State of Maine, the above named defendant Martial C. Goyette did unlawfully have in his possession two moose." An Aroostook County jury on July 12, 1978 returned a verdict of guilty as charged against the defendant and he appeals from the ensuing judgment of conviction. We deny the appeal.

Facts

Mindful of the rule that an appellate court must view the evidence and such inferences as may be reasonably inferred therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict reached by the jury, 4 we find that the trial record discloses the following sequence of events.

Thanksgiving Day 1977 was ideal for hunters in northern Maine; the soft blanket of freshly accumulated white snow covering the ground readily revealed the tracks left behind by wild animals as they scrambled for safety from their pursuers and the low ceiling atmospheric condition during the light snow-storm tended to mute the cacophony of forest noises during open hunting season. One Roger Ringuette, a resident of Sinclair, knew the neighboring forest well and, faced with the existing excellent weather conditions, decided to try his luck with his 12 gauge shotgun and bird shots at fetching some partridge that afternoon. 5 Ambling along a snowmobile trail, he first heard two shots which seemed to have been fired from a location not too far distant. A few minutes later he noticed two moose tracks in the snow. Leaving the trail to follow the moose tracks, he had walked only about one hundred yards, when he came upon the tracks of a man which at that point joined the moose tracks, heading in the same direction towards the woods. Shortly thereafter Goyette appeared, and Ringuette asked him if he had seen any deer, to which the defendant, unknown to Ringuette at the time, told him that he had "just dropped" a moose. Both then repaired to the fallen beast, and Goyette gutted the animal while Ringuette watched him do it. When Ringuette started to leave the area, the defendant extracted from him a promise not to tell anyone about the moose.

Ringuette immediately came out of the woods and contacted Gary Pelletier, the local game warden. They went directly to the site of the slain moose. The warden did observe distinctive boot print impressions in the snow as he followed the route to the dead moose; he further noticed the same set of tracks extending some one hundred and fifty feet beyond; tracking the same, he found another smaller cow moose, also all dressed up. Both had been killed, so Pelletier testified, by single shots from a high powered rifle. According to Ringuette and Pelletier, both carcasses were still warm.

The veteran warden then set out to track down the hunter described by Ringuette, i. e. the fellow who had gutted the first moose. Within the hour of his investigation

Page 1108
at the wooded area, Pelletier accosted the defendant, read him the Miranda warnings, and, after obtaining the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights, got the defendant's side of the story.

Goyette denied shooting the moose and informed the officer that he had come upon the dead animals in the course of his hunting for deer. He conceded that he had dressed the moose, but only with the intent to preserve the meat for the time being and then refer the matter to the proper authorities.

Unconvinced by the defendant's alleged innocent motive, the officer, with some resistance from Goyette, confiscated the defendant's gun, an Elite 308 Model 99C rifle with lever action and a Weaver 4-power scope, and placed him under arrest.

Two days later, Warden Pelletier and several of his colleagues returned to the area of the slain moose and searched the surroundings with a metal detector. In a small thicket roughly 110 feet from one moose and 185 feet from the other, the warden discovered two spent shell casings. According to Pelletier, anyone standing on the spot where the casings were found would have "a very good line of sight" on both moose. Sergeant Richard Arnold, a ballistics expert employed by the Maine State Police, stated that his testing revealed that the shell casings had been fired from the same rifle confiscated from the defendant.

The defendant took the stand in his own defense and gave an account substantially in accord with the one he gave to the warden immediately preceding his arrest. He added further that, in this opinion based on many years of hunting in Canada and New England, the moose had been dead for about three hours by the time he came upon the scene.

Admissibility of rifle and shell casings

After a proper foundation had been laid, the Court admitted in evidence, over defense objection, the .30 calibre rifle taken from the defendant and the two spent shell casings found at the scene. The defendant renews on appeal the same objection he raised at trial, that the rifle and shell casings, although tending to show that the defendant had shot the moose, were irrelevant to the issue of possession of the moose, the crime with which Goyette was charged. Alternatively, he argues that, even if relevant, this real evidence was so highly prejudicial in its impact on the jury that it should have been excluded under Rule 403, M.R.Evid. 6 We disagree.

Evidence is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove the matter at issue. Here, proof that the two shell casings found in the area of the dead moose had been fired from the defendant's gun and that it was the defendant who had "dropped" these moose, would suggest to a rational jury that the defendant had taken possession of these wild animals, intending to circumscribe their free lance movements in the world of the wilds to the narrow confines of his personal control. This logical link in the claim of circumstantial evidence with respect to the issue of possession made the evidence admissible within judicial discretion, unless excludable by reason of some particular rule or principle of law. State v. Brown, Me., 321 A.2d 478, 482 (1974).

And, the mere fact that the proffered evidence tended to prove the commission of another crime is not per se a sufficient reason for its exclusion. It may be admissible if it is probative of some element of the crime for which the defendant is being tried. State v. Grant, Me., 394 A.2d 274, 276 (1978); State v. Heald, Me., 393 A.2d 537, 542 (1978); State v. Cugliata, Me., 372 A.2d 1019, 1029 (1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 856, 98 S.Ct. 177, 54 L.Ed.2d 128.

This Court has held on numerous occasions that rulings of the trial court in connection

Page 1109
with relevancy of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it can be said that the presiding justice abused his discretion. State v. Morton, Me., 397 A.2d 171, 178 (1979).

In making the balancing test between the impact which relevant evidence may have upon the jury and the degree of probative value of such evidence, the trial justice is allowed a broad range of discretion. State v. Doughty, Me., 399 A.2d 1319, 1323 (1979); State v. Mitchell, Me., 390 A.2d 495, 500 (1978); State v. Gagne, Me., 343 A.2d 186, 196 (1975). Rule 403, M.R.Evid., is declaratory of existing Maine law: the issue is, the risk of unfair prejudice of the relevant evidence, its tendency to confuse the jury or the need to exclude it to prevent a sheer waste of the court's time. See Advisers' Note, Maine Rules of Evidence, p. 14.

We hold in the instant case that evidence of the gun and spent shell casings, which tended to prove that the defendant had killed the moose, was properly admitted on the crucial issue of possession, first, as bearing on the credibility of Ringuette's testimony that Goyette alone gutted the moose, and, secondly, in support of the State's theory that Goyette's dressing of the moose was criminally motivated, contrary to the innocent orientation placed upon his conduct by the defendant's post-factum statements. Again, the mere fact that the evidence suggested the commission of a crime different from that charged against the defendant did not raise an automatic barrier to its admissibility, and we cannot see how its presentation to the triers of fact in this case would be likely to inflame the passions of any reasonable jury. There was no violation of Rule 403, M.R.Evid.

Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession

Having discussed the admissibility of the defendant's gun and spent shell casings in connection with the issue of unlawful possession of the two moose, the crime charged against Goyette, we will now take out of order his argument, raised for the first time in this appeal, that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Goyette, on November 24, 1977, "did unlawfully have in his possession two moose."

The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict was not advanced before the trial Court by motion for judgment of acquittal, either at the close of all the evidence, M.R.Crim.P., Rule 29(a), or after jury verdict, M.R.Crim.P., Rule 29(b), nor did the defendant move for a new trial under Rule 33, M.R.Crim.P. In these circumstances, our review of such issue is limited to the "manifest error-serious injustice" standard, i. e. whether there was error which deprived the defendant of a fundamentally fair trial. State v. Boyer, Me., 392 A.2d 41 (1978); State v. Mimmovich, Me.,377 A.2d 116, 118 (1977); State v. Hanson, Me., 331 A.2d 375, 378 (1975).

If the evidence was such that under no circumstances could the defendant be found guilty of having violated 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467, i. e. of possession of moose or any part or parts thereof, then Goyette's conviction of such crime on evidentiary facts which in and of themselves disproved the commission of such crime would rise to the level of an obvious serious prejudicial error depriving him of his fundamental right to a fair trial.

In testing the evidence in the context of the "manifest error-serious injustice" principle, the appellate court must view the record, as in the case of saved error, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, assuming the truth of the evidence adduced in support of the State and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom which favor the State. State v. Young, Me., 390 A.2d 1056, 1057 (1978); State v. Littlefield, Me., 389 A.2d 16, 19 (1978); State v. Blier, Me., 371 A.2d 1091, 1092 (1977). The sufficiency of the proof in any case must be measured by the "totality of the evidence." State v. Matheson, Me., 363 A.2d 716, 722 (1976).

Hence, we must decide whether from the facts of the instant case viewed in the light

Page 1110
most favorable to the government the defendant "did possess" the moose within the meaning of 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467. Initially, we may say that the jury could have concluded from the evidence that the defendant had factually shot the two moose, and this beyond a reasonable doubt, disbelieving Goyette's exculpatory statement that he merely came upon the dead animals, dressed them for the sole purpose of preserving the meat and intended to notify the authorities respecting the presence of the dead beasts in the woods.

State v. Gaudin, 152 Me. 13, 16, 120 A.2d 823, 825 (1956), this Court interpreted the statute here in issue and held that Gaudin, who at midnight took into possession, and had in his possession and under his physical control when apprehended, a part of a moose and was carrying it away with intent to use or dispose of it, had "possession" of "moose, or parts thereof" within the meaning of the statute which forbade the same. In Gaudin, said the Court, "(a)ctual possession exists where the thing is in the physical control, or immediate occupancy of the party;" * * * "physical control of a thing is possession of it."

State v. Koehling, Me., 381 A.2d 12, 14 (1978), where the charge was the unlawful possession of deer, this Court stated that

"(w)here the State alleges a crime of possession of a physical object, it must prove possession by showing that the accused At some time bore one of two relationships to the object: He either had immediate physical control or occupancy of the object or knew where it was and had the intention and ability to gain physical control or occupancy of it." (Emphasis added)

We readily observe that in the instant case proof of possession of the moose is not so complete as in Gaudin, where the intent to use or dispose of the moose parts was obvious. Here, however, as in Koehling, we can say that Goyette did At some time bear the necessary relationship to the physical object, the moose, in that he at one time had immediate physical control and occupancy of the moose by shooting them and dressing them.

In the ancient case of Pierson v. Post, 3 Caines' Reps. 174, 178 (1805), it was said that

"actual bodily seizure is not indispensable to acquire right to, or possession of, wild beasts; but that, on the contrary, the mortal wounding of such beasts, by one not abandoning his pursuit, may, with the utmost propriety, be deemed possession of him; since thereby the pursuer manifests an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use, has deprived him of his natural liberty, and brought him within his certain control."

Whether Goyette's relationship to the two moose was in violation of section 2467 of chapter 12 would depend upon the meaning which the Legislature intended to attach to the language no person shall have in his Possession any moose or parts thereof when it enacted the legislation. We recognize the fundamental principle of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be construed strictly. State v. Millett, Me., 392 A.2d 521, 525 (1978); State v. Snow, Me., 383 A.2d 1385, 1388 (1978); State v. Granville, Me., 336 A.2d 861, 863 (1975). But, the cardinal rule to which all other rules are subordinated is that the intent of the Legislature controls. Legislative intent, whether ascertained directly from the statutory language itself or indirectly through the process of judicial analysis, must prevail and be given effect. State v. Bellino, Me., 390 A.2d 1014, 1022 (1978). In the instant case, the statute does not define the term " possession," but it must be so interpreted to give it such meaning as shall appear most reasonable and best suited to effectuate the intent, And implement the policy, of the Legislature. State v. Bellino, supra, 390 A.2d at p. 1021; State v. Heald, Me., 382 A.2d 290, 294 (1978). Penal statutes must not be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious purpose of the legislation. State v. S. S. Kresge, Inc., Me., 364 A.2d 868, 871 (1976).

The total prohibition against having in possession any moose or parts thereof (except for imported moose possessed under

Page 1111
special permit for the purpose of consumption or mounting, but not for sale), as reflected in section 2467 of title 12, was enacted in its present form by the public laws of 1945 and 1953 (See P.L.1945, c. 374, s. 81 and P.L.1953, c. 394, s. 49). Undoubtedly, the Legislature was familiar with the decisions of this Court respecting violations of the Inland Fish and Game laws of the State. Our Court, as early as 1897, in a case in pari materia with the facts of the instant case (fishing for smelts contrary to statute), had stated that

"(some) acts, however, are sometimes made unlawful absolutely, without reference to any intent or other state of mind of the doer. In such cases no intent need be alleged or proved. The intent to do is sufficient, and that can be inferred from the doing. The acts prohibited by this statute are of this latter class. They are prohibited absolutely. Having Intentionally committed them, Though innocent of any turpitude, the appellant has violated the statute." State v. Huff, 89 Me. 521, 36 A. 1000 (1897).

We hold that, in enacting in 1945 and 1953 the prohibitory provisions of what is now section 2467 of title 12 of our Inland Fish and Game laws, the Legislature intended that the mere Intentional doing of acts amounting to possession of moose would give rise to a sufficient culpable mental state required in proof of its violation and that knowledge that the conduct of the actor is prohibited by law (criminal turpitude) would not be an element of the crime.

Wild game within a state is not subject to private control, possession or ownership except to the extent that the people through their representatives in the legislature may elect to permit the same; thus, the Legislature may, if it sees fit, absolutely prohibit the hunting, killing or possession of any wild game, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preservation of the public good. It has full power and authority to regulate the taking of wild animals, and, in so doing, to impose such conditions, restrictions and limitations as it deems needful or proper. State v. Snowman, 94 Me. 99, 46 A. 815, 80 Am.St.Rep. 380, 50 L.R.A. 544 (1900); Holbrook Island Sanctuary v. Inhabitants of Town of Brookville, 161 Me. 476, at pages 486 and 488, 214 A.2d 660 (1965).

The purpose and scope of 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467 is to give moose absolute immunity from man's innate liking for the "sport" of hunting. The Legislature has deemed this necessary for their preservation and protection, and to prevent their decimation and extinction. (An experimental short hunting season on moose has been enacted by the One Hundred and Ninth Legislature (P.L. 1979, c. 56, and c. 543 § 7463)). James v. Wood, 82 Me. 173, 19 A. 160 (1889); Lacoste v. Dept. of Conservation, 263 U.S. 545, 549, 44 S.Ct. 186, 187, 68 L.Ed. 437 (1924). 7

Page 1112

Whether Goyette did possess the moose in violation of 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467 was a question of fact for the jury. It was for them to say whether he killed them and had not abandoned his prey, having in mind that he dressed them as he conceded. State v. Visser, 188 Wash. 179, 61 P.2d 1284 (1936).

Possession does not necessarily mean having them on one's person or being apprehended in the act of carrying them as in Gaudin, supra. Stewart v. People, 83 Colo. 289, 264 P. 720, 721 (1928).

Furthermore, when Goyette undertook to dress the moose, the doing of that very act was a violation of the statute. His purpose in so doing, even if believed, was immaterial. Given the overriding design of the Legislature as trustee of wild game to protect them against the onslaught of an avid hunting public, criminal intent in the nature of a specific intention to violate the law was not made an essential element of the crime of possession, and honest intentions or good faith may not be successfully advanced in justification of what the statute prohibits absolutely. State v. Barber, 91 N.M. 764, 581 P.2d 27 (1978); State v. Bates, 76 S.D. 23, 71 N.W.2d 641 (1955); Commonwealth v. Worth, 304 Mass. 313, 23 N.E.2d 891, 125 A.L.R. 1196 (1939); Worington v. Richart, 226 Mo.App. 42, 41 S.W.2d 410 (1931). The Legislature, in banning the possession of moose unconditionally, was also motivated by the fact that such arbitrary prohibition without the element of such criminal intent would serve to effectuate the end results of the legislation more fully by preventing easy evasions of the statute's mandate. Haggerty v. St. Louis Ice Manufacturing & Storage Co., 143 Mo. 238, 44 S.W. 1114, 1116 (1898).

The defendant can hardly complain about the sufficiency of the evidence in the instant case, since the issue of possession was submitted to the jury on instructions requested by him which advised the jury that

"where someone is walking along the woods, hunting or not, but . . . came upon a moose that was dead and he had nothing to do with it and he looked down and he saw the dead moose, and if that person felt, well, the meat is going to spoil and I'd better clean it out, and then go tell the authorities and did that, and that was what happened, I don't think the legislature had any intention of saying that that person was a criminal. And I think we should accept that interpretation of the statute."

Such instruction was more favorable to the defendant than what he was entitled to, and effectively indicates that the jury disbelieved Goyette's exculpatory statement to the effect that his possession of the moose was merely for the purpose of dressing the animals to save the meat, but rather, that they concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the moose, dressed them, and, knowing where they were, had the intention and ability to regain physical control and occupancy of them at the opportune time. We fail to see how the defendant was prejudiced by the erroneous instruction which was downright beneficial to him. State v. Heald, Me., 307 A.2d 188, 190 (1973). In any view of the evidence, there was sufficient proof of possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice's ruling on admissibility of evidence in presence of jury

Sergeant Richard Arnold of the Maine State Police was called by the prosecution for the purpose of offering expert testimony directed to the question whether the shell casings came from the rifle taken from the defendant. During the voir-dire interrogation which, in the absence of any defense objection, took place in the presence of the jury, the witness testified that he had attended numerous schools for ballistics experts, had received three years of on-the-job training at the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory, and had personally examined every firearm, cartridge casing and bullet submitted to that laboratory since June of 1975. He also stated that during that period he had made hundreds of comparisons and had qualified as a ballistics expert in numerous court appearances.

Page 1113

After defense counsel had finished his voir-dire cross-examination, the presiding Justice remarked, again in the presence of the jury:

"All right, the Court finds that the witness, Sergeant Arnold, is qualified as an expert in this field, and that the tests which he conducts are the kind that are reasonably relied upon by experts in this field. And therefore, he may testify as an expert and may testify as to his opinions as the result of tests."

No objection was made by the defendant, and Sergeant Arnold proceeded to describe the test he had performed on the shell casings. He stated that he fired one bullet from the defendant's rifle, retrieved the shell casing and compared it with both of the casings found on the scene. After examining the markings on the various casings, Sergeant Arnold expressed the opinion that the casings found on the scene had been fired from the defendant's rifle.

The defendant, for the first time, argues that the voir-dire examination should not have been conducted in the presence of the jury and that the Justice's ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in the hearing of the jury was prejudicial.

Generally speaking, testimony directed to preliminary questions, except when taken out in connection with the admissibility of confessions, may be given in the presence and hearing of the jury, unless the presiding justice concludes that the interests of justice require otherwise. Rule 104(c), M.R.Evid. 8 If the presiding justice can foresee that the prospective testimony may in all likelihood result in irreparable harm to the defendant's case, the only safe and proper course of action is to conduct a preliminary hearing thereon out of the hearing of the jury. But counsel for the parties supposedly should have a greater inkling of the impact evidence on preliminary questions might have on the jury, and it is their duty, primarily, to see that their clients' rights are protected by seeking from the court a hearing in the absence of the jury, if they believe that such course would be in the interests of their client. 9 The failure, however, on the part of defense counsel to object to the reference trial procedure casts the scope of our review in the manifest error-serious injustice context. State v. Doucette, Me., 398 A.2d 36, 39 (1978). Our perusal of the record convinces us that no prejudice resulted to the defendant from the mere fact that the examination of Sergeant Arnold on the preliminary question of his expertise took place in the presence and hearing of the jury.

But, we must decide, whether the presiding Justice's express ruling on admissibility, made in the hearing of the jury, notwithstanding defense counsel's failure to object or request an immediate explanatory curative instruction, was such an expression of opinion by the presiding Justice on an issue of fact as to constitute irremediable error entitling the defendant to a new trial. We hold that the Justice's remarks in his ruling on admissibility of Arnold's testimony as an expert witness, viewed in the light of the Justice's jury

Page 1114
instructions thereon, did not constitute such grievance as to bring the case within the mandate of 14 M.R.S.A., § 1105. 10 Such trial irregularity did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

We do agree that the presiding Justice had to satisfy himself preliminarily respecting the qualifications of Arnold as a ballistics expert. State v. Wardwell, 158 Me. 307, 318, 183 A.2d 896 (1962); State v. Libby, 153 Me. 1, 8, 133 A.2d 877 (1957); State v. Stuart, 132 Me. 107, 109, 167 A. 550 (1933).

His specific findings of fact upon which he based his conclusion that Arnold was competent to testify as an expert in that field should not have been expressly disclosed to the jury. The error, if any, however, was harmless in the circumstances of this case. After carefully and accurately explaining the role of experts, the presiding Justice instructed the jury as follows:

"(H)ere, Sergeant Arnold of the State Police testified as an expert in the field of comparison by microscopic examination of shell casings and rifles.

"And what the law says is that you consider the testimony given by any expert just the way you do anybody else. You evaluate it and determine whether it's credible, believable, based upon sufficient facts and sufficient education or training. And you accept it or not as you do anybody else's testimony. And in that regard, an expert's testimony is the same as anybody else's for the jury to determine its weight and its use."

We fail to see how the jury could interpret the presiding Justice's remark in connection with his ruling on the admissibility of the expert witness' testimony as a conclusion binding upon them in the face of his instructions to the contrary. Thus, considering the record as a whole, we cannot say that the Court's remark in passing upon the admissibility of the reference evidence was "so highly prejudicial and calculated to result in injustice that an unjust verdict would inevitably result or that the accused did not have that impartial trial to which he is entitled under the law and the constitution." State v. Bachelder, Me., 403 A.2d 754, 760 (1979). Brine v. State, Me., 264 A.2d 530, 535-536 (1970).

Exclusion of Evidence

The defendant testified that, in gutting one of the moose, he retrieved a bullet, which was lodged between the meat and the skin of the animal. In the course of his testimony, the bullet was produced and admitted in evidence as a defense exhibit. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel asked the defendant when in his opinion the bullet was fired. In sustaining the State's objection, the Court stated: "I don't see where he would have the ability to answer that question." The defendant now argues that, based on his extensive experience as a hunter, he was qualified as an expert to express his opinion on the time of firing of the bullet.

The presiding Justice obviously concluded that, under Rule 702, M.R.Evid., the defendant did not possess the requisite qualifications which would permit him to express an expert opinion on a question of ballistics. The defendant offered no evidence to show that he had any knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in that field. Whether a witness is qualified to testify in relation to matters involving scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge pursuant to Rule 702, M.R.Evid. is a preliminary question for the presiding Justice and his determination will not be reversed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gervais, Me., 394 A.2d 1183, 1187 (1978); State v. Ifill, Me., 349 A.2d 176, 183 (1975); State v. Appleton, Me., 297 A.2d 363, 372 (1972). We cannot say that the

Page 1115
presiding Justice abused his discretion in disallowing the defendant's self-serving "guesstimate" of the time when the bullet was fired.

The entry is:

Appeal denied.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ., did not sit.

---------------

1 Sitting by assignment.

2 The prosecution was initiated in the District Court, but the case was subsequently transferred to the Superior Court for jury trial.

3 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467 provides as follows:

No person shall hunt, kill or Have in his possession any caribou or Moose, or parts thereof. (Emphasis added) No person who has legally killed a caribou or moose beyond the limits of this State shall have in his possession or import such caribou or moose, or parts thereof, into this State, unless he has obtained a permit from the commissioner to import such caribou or moose, or parts thereof, for the purpose of consumption or for mounting, but not for sale. Such permit authorizing the importation of caribou or moose, or parts thereof, shall set forth the inclusive dates when such possession shall be legal.

Possession of caribou or moose, or parts thereof, without a permit, or after such permit has expired, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

4 State v. Boyer, Me., 392 A.2d 41, 42 (1978); State v. Smith, Me., 382 A.2d 40, 42 (1978); State v. Gellers, Me., 282 A.2d 173, 179 (1971).

5 Gary Pelletier, the game warden who was called as a State witness in the case, testified that on Thanksgiving Day the hunting season on partridges was closed.

6 Rule 403, M.R.Evid. provides as follows:

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

7 This is consistent with the Maine Criminal Code effective May 1, 1976. Our Inland Fish and Game laws regulating fishing and hunting provide penalties for violation of their provisions and these violations constitute crimes defined outside Title 17-A, the Maine Criminal Code. By virtue of section 6 of the Code, the provisions of chapter 1 of the Code (which would include sections 10 and 11 thereof) are made applicable "to crimes defined outside this code, unless the context of the statute defining the crime clearly requires otherwise." Section 11(5) provides that, if a statute defining a crime does not expressly prescribe a culpable mental state with respect to some or all of the elements of the crime, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required (such as that the actor acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, Or negligently), unless:

B. A legislative intent to impose liability without culpability as to those elements otherwise appears. Section 10, subsection 1-A, defines the culpable state of mind for intentional conduct to be: "A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his conduct when it is his Conscious object to cause such a result." (Emphasis added)

In the instant case, Goyette's relationship to the moose consisted of intentional conduct as defined by the Code. The record indicates that he knew at all times that he was dealing with moose.

We intimate no opinion, whether possession of moose under circumstances which would prove no knowledge in the actor that what he possessed was moose would be a violation of 12 M.R.S.A., § 2467. State v. Artus, 141 Me. 347, 43 A.2d 924 (1945).

8 M.R.Evid. 104(c) reads as follows:

(c) Hearing of jury. Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall in all cases be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interests of justice require or, when an accused is a witness, if he so requests.

See also Rule 705(b), which says:

An adverse party may object to the testimony of an expert on the ground that he does not have a sufficient basis for expressing an opinion. He May before the witness gives his opinion be allowed to conduct in the absence of the jury a voir dire examination directed to the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

9 Certain sensitive areas have been recognized as requiring preliminary handling out of the hearing of the jury. State v. Roy, Me., 385 A.2d 795, 798, n. 2 (1978); State v. Toppi, Me., 275 A.2d 805, 813 (1971) (admissibility of prior convictions); State v. Chapman, Me., 358 A.2d 387 (1976) (admissibility of in-court identification); State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556 (1976) (admissibility of polygraph examination results); State v. Bragg, Me., 334 A.2d 507 (1975) (admissibility of crucial physical evidence); State v. Robbins, Me., 318 A.2d 51, 57 (1974) (determination of possible self-incrimination where constitutional privilege is invoked).

10 14 M.R.S.A., § 1105 provides:

During a jury trial the presiding justice shall rule and charge the jury, orally or in writing, upon all matters of law arising in the case but shall not, during the trial, including the charge, express an opinion upon issues of fact arising in the case, and such an expression of opinion is sufficient cause for a new trial if either party aggrieved thereby and interested desires it, and the same shall be ordered accordingly by the law court on appeal in a civil or criminal case.

upport group to be formed for six-pack efficianados NOT named Joe. Say it ain't so!

laska to adopt pitbull as state bird.

rig Palin absent from campaign photo ops since this afternoon. DSS alerted.

ltra Last Red Blood-Drawn-From-A-Pitbull Long-Wearing Lipstick now available from N.Y.C. Cosmetics.

eading un-banned Dostoyevski or Nabokov now counts as foreign policy experience.

rop the "g" on "-ing" words, earn a tax break.

nswer all questions with either "special needs," "maverick," "special needs," "yer darn right," "special needs," "God's will," "special needs," "ole boys' network," "special needs," or "nuke-yuh-lerr," earn a new huntin' rifle. 

ell at pregnant rape victims to choose life, earn a wink.

American schools are apparently warming up to the idea of the University of British Columbia joining the NCAA, and most likely the GNAC.

Here's a Western College Hockey Blog post about the article, which has some interesting comments on this feeling out.

Former Nanook Coach Al Sokaitis has three former Nanooks, Justin Bourne, Andrew Smith and Travis Knutson, on the Alaska Dream, Anchorage's new ABA basketball team.

News-Miner article about hockey's Blue-Gold game.

Preview of the Nanooks' hockey game against the NTDP U-18 team.

OurSportsCentral release about the Nanooks' win over the U-18 squad.

News-Miner article on the win.

Preview of the Nanook-Seawolves volleyball game. There's a hint that current Nanook Heather Lyons had a not-so-happy departure from the Seawolves a few years ago.

News-Miner article on the volleyball team's five-set win over UAA. I like the part when the Anchorage coach is quoted as saying: “They were aggressive. They kept swinging at the ball and we didn’t,” Anchorage first-year coach Chris Green said. “We played not to lose and they played to win.”
Those are almost the exact same words Nanook coach Phil Shoemaker and senior Korlyn Bolster used to describe the Nanooks earlier this year (only in the positive). Shoemaker said, before the season's first game against the University o Central Misourri: "I think we're a much more aggressive team than we have been in a few years. I think we're physically better, I think we're technically better; hopefully those things will allow us to do some things tactically better.
Bolster said at that same time: "We're more of an offensive team than a defensive team now, just meaning that we play to win instead of playing not to lose."

Four former Nanooks were inducted into the Nanook Hall of Fame.

Rifle wins day 1.

Rifle wins day 2- Ida Peterson did amazing. Keep an eye on her.

Hockey defender (the lone senior blueliner) Steve Vanoosten gets the honor of being Danny Martin's first profiled player of the season.

Blasting sirens and a deserted city was the only thing that was for sure in this Armageddon. I was sitting completely silent staring out a window at the sky  waiting for something which I wasn't sure of . In a complete sense of confusion I turned to my lifeline; the television. The news was not being reported. The only thing I got from the tube was a rainbow colored screen with a black bar at the bottom. I heard a message from the emergency broadcast system telling everyone to huddle in their homes, and do not leave under any circumstances. This was even more confusing to me. I then stared back out the window to grasp my surroundings. I was in a city I had never seen. I was apparently on the second floor of a grey building. All of the buildings where grey. There was no color at all, but grey.

After a long look out the window I turned to a staircase which was also encased in grey color. I went down the staircase into an English pub below. I walked inside this pub and their was one person inside. I went up to the person who seemed to be a bartender, and I asked him for a pint of the best beer on tap. He then filled up a cup of some dark beer and handed it to me. I then left the pub and headed back up the stairs to my window. The only words exchanged between the bartender and me was the request for a pint of beer. Once I arrived back at my window I continued to stare out the window at the sky and sip on what I believed was my final beer.

Out of the corner of my eye I noticed a huge piece metal torpedoing towards the city. I watched the torpedoing piece of metal cross from one corner of the sky straight towards the city. Almost instantaneously the object was lost in the horizon filled with tall grey buildings.

Only seconds later I was flung backwards towards the other side of the building along with a flurry of debris. I layed there almost sure I was dead. I slowly stood up and walked back to my window. I looked down to notice my beer had been knocked over. I then stared back out the window and noticed a group of men coming towards my building. They where wearing black attire like a scuba diver, and they where wearing black ski masks and goggles too. They where wielding large guns of some sort too. One of the guys saw me staring out the window and they all made their way to my building.

I ran down the stairs back to the english pub to see if the bartender was still there, and he was. He said absolutely nothing to me. He threw a large rifle to me and he ran away wielding a shotgun. I was confused more than ever at this point, so I ran back to my window with my large gun.

Three men busted through the door of the building. I could see them through the railings of the staircase. They searched the bottom floor first, and as they made their way up the staircases towards me and my window I woke up.

Afterward, the cadets will be sitting around with one another cleaning weapons. Until every last one shines. Goodness knows how long that will take. Rumor has it that it could take all night. No one leaves until the last weapon sparkles. Considering the condition that the rifles are starting in, the rumors could be true.

Report video del ministero della difesa della Corea del Sud.

For this third version, now called "Boundless" Bungie took out the two main entrance shield doors along with the ice tunnels' and added the Battle Rifle opposite to the Convenant Carbine for the spawning points. I have found that this gives more power to the Ghost vehicle and makes it easier to ambush those who would hide in the two buildings. This also decreases the power of the mauler since one can't camp at the shield door entrances as much, which is unfortunate because that is one of my favorite weapons. However, the changes increases the range of the grenades, another added frustrating element. Nothing pisses me off more than dying from a random grenade chucked from the far end of another room.

Boundless definitely forces team games to work together or fail apart. The several Team Slayer games I have played of the updated map seem to have a huge gap between the winner's score and the loser's, and I ended up on both sides. Also, Boundless has become more of a long range map dueling between convenant carbines, battle rifles, needlers, convenant sniper, and those goddamn random grenades.

In my opinion, Snowbound was never really a balanced map and Boundless hasn't changed much of that. Ephitaph, Narrows, Construct, and Guardian are more balanced maps, which enable players to combat short, middle, or long ranges in a variety of combination with a better success rate.

poplli tumani nad rekoi,

vkhadyila na byereg Katyusha,

na vsoki byereg, na krutoi."

Hvala vsem za sodelovanje :)

Fotke so enkrat za spremembo link na večje

]]> http://mloope.wordpress.com/?p=289 Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:04:56 +0000 mloope08 http://mloope.ca.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/arsenal/ [/caption]

Description

The Halo Covenant Plasma Rifle game is a laser pursuit gaming set with clip on target. Features included single shot with recoil when shot fired, rapid fire with continuous recoil, side vents pop open when overheated, real game firing sounds, LCD display counts available ammunition, reload button available to start new game. Clip on target with flashed red when hit and shield level indicator. Requires three "C" batteries for Plasma Rifle and three "AA" for the clip-on target.

Feedback from Customer

J. Leigh Says

It's nice when toy companies take advantage of modern technology when they can to manufacture new toys. 
The rifle is a great concept- essentially a Halo weapon replica and laser tag toy at the same time. 
Only difference is that the sensor for the tag acts like a Halo shield which recharges after a while. 
Rifle glows when turned on and recoils when fired. 
The rifle looked really big on youtube and it looks even bigger in person. 

My rifle had a non-functional reload button. Oh well. I think the button broke internally, I can hear something rattling around. 

The quality of the plastic is what you'd expect for a toy- strong enough to keep the thing together but you definitely can't melee with it :) 

Hope they come out with a full line of Halo weapons in the future.

J. Molino Says

This Plasma Rifle rocks! This is a must buy. You have to buy this. My favorite feature is the overheat feature. This part is awsome. 
This gun has lights,sound,and recoil. 
If you buy the Plasma Pistol you can play with friends with Laser Pursuit Technology! The fun never ends! 

This gun comes with an LCD counter (sheild). 
Really really really cool!!! 
I have this gun. 
Trust me, this gun is so so cool. 

Belive me!!!

Jessika Couron Says

I was very excited when I got these in the mail. 
I couldn't put them down all day, even before I put batteries in the other part of it, and tried the laser tag part. 

Although they look quite a bit different from the plasma rifles that are actually in halo, they are pretty rad looking. They are also HUGE! A lot bigger than I expected, but it was just a bit harder to hold up. 
Makes sense if you think about how big master chief actually is compared to the gun. 

If you are a big halo fan, or just like guns/laser tag, this is a must buy! 

And as for now, Toynk has the best price I have found

More Jasman Toys

The Recon CS-6 is actually a pistol with a stock and barrel extension to make it look like a rifle. It also comes with a flip-up sight which is totally useless and a red light for night missions. Both attachments can be fitted onto the Recon using the rails on the gun.

Streamline darts are the only darts that can be used with the Recon as all other darts will be jammed in the rifle's breech. However these darts do not fly straight as the head of the dart is too light, and the hole on the head only makes accuracy worse. Even the Nerf Maverick fires much better. Hence the Raffles Nerf Team will be modifying the streamline dart, and the rifle, to increase the rifle's range and accuracy. Stay tuned to see our modifications.

Below are some pictures of operator Osiris's stock Recon, to be re-painted soon.

Another steady step, and then he stopped. His eyes continued to gaze into the boy's, as Lucifer opened his mouth with a touch of wetness. Then it became clear, his lips where wet so his offer could roll of them so smoothly: "Give me your soul, and I'll grant you seven wishes."

Startled, the boy stepped back with his right foot. Reaching into behind his back, he pulled out an orange water pistol and fired with lighting precision into the face of Lucifer. The attack was accompanied with the response to the offer: "Screw you!"

In a shrill voice, Lucifer shrieked in pain, "Ahhh my eyes! You douche!" Continuing to fire, the boy rolled once he was empty, picking up a water burst rifle. This weapon was quite the analogue to a shotgun, pump action with bursts of water.

Repeatedly being hit with shots from the new weapon, Lucifer began roaring as he stepped backwards. Suddenly, a black hole opened behind him, spanning the entire width of the room and even part of the floor behind. On its edges, drips of darkness blurred and mingled with the physical realm of the room. Continuing to step backwards, Lucifer finally put his weight on a foot that had no foundation and he fell backwards into the black hole, roaring as his stiff body rotated.

Well now it's been revealed that UK retailer Game Station will be getting thier own limited edition version of the game, but unlike the US customers, the UK gets a golden lancer! Sounds great, but this fucker has been priced at £129.99! The same RRP as the recently reducted Xbox Arcade!

The Gears of War 2 - Hardcore Pack includes:

Life Size gold Lancer Assault Rifle

• 36” long
• Weigh’s over 5 kilo’s
• Chainsaw Sound Effect
• Vibration Functionality

Gears of War 2 Limited Collectors Edition.

As most of you already know, when you purchase the limited edition you get the gold lancer to use online, so this is what it will most likely look like.

In my opinion this is way overpriced and looks really tacky when compared to the US lancer with the neat blood splatter. I'll definately give this a miss, i'd much rather spend that sort of money on something i'll enjoy like Guitar Hero World Tour! I did buy the Halo 3 legendary edition, but that was reasonably priced, it's a stylish product and looks great next to my Elite. But what would you do with the lancer? You'd need to get some nails on the wall to mount it, and even then the gold makes it look crappy! However in it's defence the vibration and sound effects might be cool, bit is it enough to warrant the £130 price tag? £60 more than the Halo 3 legendary? I don't think so Tim!

This year was the first year that I was not part of the youth day at the Rod and Gun Club. Every year this day was my father's and I day together. You spend all day shooting all different types of guns. I enjoyed being one of the few girls showing what little I can. I was navigating champ for three years, and could shoot twenty targets with the same amount of ammunition. I've been apart of youth day since I was nine years old. Now my dad and I get our time together out in the blinds.

De primeras nos encontramos con un shooter online (sin cuotas), 2 bandos y diversas misiones como plantar una bomba, rescatar al vip, etc... . Multiple armamento nos espera, desde rifles a escopetas. Hay pequeñas direfencias entre los dos bandos.

Como banco 'CT' (Counter-Terrorist), digamos el bueno, nos encontramos a soldados entrenados y cualificados.

Como bando 'T' (Terrorist) estan los rebeldes que quieres destruir el mundo con bombas y matar a los vip, el enemigo por así decirlo.

Hay diferencias en las armas, tanto en los rifles de asalto y las metralletas, y una mínima en los rifles de precisión (un rifle francotirador).

Para jugar es necesario el programa 'Steam' de Valve corporation y una conexión a internet, aunque esto no es problema ya que es un juego on-line. Aunque la gente eche pestes sobre este programa yo lo encuentro agradable y muy práctico. No hay que buscar las actualizaciones, posibilidad de gestionar los servidores y favoritos, amigos, etc...

Al ser un juego online, y a la vez uno de los más jugados existen diversidad de mod´s y/o modificaciones (paso a nombrar las más importantes):

gg_(gungame): Empieza en nivel 1,o la media de los jugadores si entras a media partida, y cuando matas a un enemigo subes de nivel y consigues otra arma. Revives una vez muerto. NO se pueden comprar armas. Tambien he encontrado una variación en la que tienes que eliminar a 3 enemigos para subir de nivel y no revives.

dm_(deathmatch): Escoges las armas que quieres, sin pagar nada. A esta configuración se le añade una granada automáticamente. Se revive una vez muerto. Son partidas largas con mucha gente.

zm_(zombiemod): El bando ct sigue tal como es, y el T son zombies). La partida comienza con jugadores CT y T, pasados unos segundos, algun jugador se convierte en zombie (T) y los demás jugadores son CT. El zombie convierte a los demás jugadores en zombies con el cuchillo, independientemente del daño que le haga. Normalmente hay munición infinita y props, para añadir objetos al mapa con la finalidad de impedir el paso de loz zombies. Los zombies suelen tener 10000-20000 puntos de vida. MUY entretenidas.

ba_(jailhouse): Transcurre en una cárcel, los T son los presos y los CT los guardias. Los guardias deben controlar a los presos en las actividades que hagan. Los presos estan en sus celdas, y no se les puede matar sin motivo. Un preso consigue un arma dentro. Todos los presos tienen el cuchillo. Tan solo con poseer un arma ya es motivo para que maten al preso. Es la revelación del momento, yo personalmente le veo mucho futuro. Tienes que engañar a los guardias, o evitar que te engañen.

El juego puede parecer un poco repetitivo, pero siempre apetece jugar. Lo mio va por rachas, ya que a veces me aburro y luego lo retomo con unas ganas tremedas, los 20€ mejor invertidos de mi vida.

Hello all!  Long time to see…  I have not been very theatrically active these past weeks, but now that Bleeding Kansas is in full swing, I figure I’ll give you a little update in the land-o-props.

My week has been spent scouring the internet, trying to get a better feel for the 1850’s.  I’ve been researching simple household items like envelopes, pencils, coffee pots, playing cards, and am attempting to make a corn cob pipe.

While that’s been incredibly fun and informative, my MOST EXCITING moment this week came as I was researching the Beecher’s Bible rifle, and found the drawings from its patent, issued September 12^th, 1848.  Basically, Christian Sharps, the inventor, created a  way to load the gun more quickly, through the breech side of the barrel instead of down the muzzle.

You guys, I was unreasonably excited!  I knew the patent date was Sept 12^th 1848, so I pulled up all of the patents from that day, (there were thirteen total), and just went down the list, opening each one.  Washing machine, bellows pump, various types of shingles… and maybe the sixth or seventh one, (I kid you not, my heart actually started beating faster), C.Sharps.  Breech-Loading Fire-Arm.  Patent number 5763.

What chilled and thrilled me, was looking at these mechanical drawings…  with their parts lettered and explained in beautiful handwriting… looking so innocent there on the page, so clean… and then making the connection that this particular gun was invented to diminish loading time, or in other words, to make the business of killing people faster. 

This object, with its levers and welded metal and ingenious design brought more terror to people than any of us can ever imagine.  And it started as a drawing.  

 I am in love with 5763.  And the U.S. Patent Office. 

Have a look: