Dodd-Frank: Making it Harder For You to Get a Mortgage

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, sarcastically known as Dodd-Frankery and Dodd-Frankenstein, was passed into law in response to the financial crisis and recession of 2008. It contains the most drastic changes to financial regulations since the regulatory reform after the Great Depression. Proposed by Obama in 2009 and signed into law in 2010, the Democratic bill was the handiwork of former Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in the House and former Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) in the Senate. It was supposedly going to stop banks from making loans to risky buyers who could not pay them back, reducing foreclosures. It was also supposed to change the rules so banks could no longer receive taxpayer-funded bailouts due to their poor business practices.


It hasn't worked out the way its Democrat proponents claimed. This is because the people who got us into this mess are the same ones who drafted the law. Dodd-Frank contains more of the same things that precipitated the financial crisis; government meddling in the mortgage business and financial markets. Lobbyists for special interests carved out loopholes, resulting in merely different lists of winners and losers. As one author in U.S. News & World Report observed, “These exemptions are less about protecting unsophisticated borrowers than about protecting the taxpayer-guaranteed business models of favored entities.” Hedge funds and some other firms lost big; they are now required to fill out a 192-page form that has been estimated to cost each firm $100,000-$150,000.

Speaking of winners or losers, most outrageously, Dodd-Frank didn’t bother to reform Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the biggest culprits for handing out mortgages to high-risk borrowers who should never have qualified for them. They received the largest bailouts of all financial institutions in 2008.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Radio Interview with KFNX's Talking Guns with Kate on Obamacare and gun control

On Sunday, I had the opportunity to talk to KFNX's Kate Krueger about how Obamacare affects your gun rights. It's all about mental health - targeting veterans with PTSD and others in the vague name of "mental health." Listen to the interview here (I'm in the second half, after an interview with Karen Worcester Ex Dir & co Founder of Wreaths Across America).

No ironclad proof: Case against Horne is circumstantial, but that may be enough

The Arizona Capitol Times had another hard-hitting article on the prosecution of Tom Horne, the liberal Republican Attorney General who has no chance of winning re-election, according to powerful D.C. consultants who have taken polls. Prosecutor Sheila Polk is not the only one who has found wrongdoing by Horne, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has also found reason to civilly prosecute Horne. This is why conservatives and Tea Party activists are supporting Mark Brnovich instead. Brnovich has been endorsed by Montgomery as well as Rep. Trent Franks.

Here are some excerpts from the article by Jeremy Duda - 


The crux of Polk’s case is a series of phone calls between Horne and Winn that occurred while Winn was communicating via email with Brian Murray, BLA’s political consultant. While Polk and Montgomery have presented the calls and emails as evidence of coordination, Horne and Winn say prosecutors can’t prove they were talking about the attorney general’s race or BLA activities. They say the calls were about Winn assisting Horne with a real estate deal.


As evidence of coordination, Polk cited the timing of Winn’s phone calls with Horne and her emails with BLA’s consultant. In some cases, the calls closely followed Murray’s emails to Winn about the BLA ad, and Winn’s responses to her consultant came just after her conversations with Horne ended. Horne also forwarded Winn an email several days later in which one of his campaign staffers discussed Horne’s campaign strategy, and urged her to raise more money from a national Republican group. And Polk’s case is bolstered by the fact that Winn worked on Horne’s campaign, and didn’t leave to work on her IE until a few weeks after the GOP primary.
...

Several elections attorneys emphasized that Polk will have to meet a relatively low standard of proof. While prosecutors in criminal cases must convince juries that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases such as Horne and Winn’s are held to a lower standard called “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that Polk only has to show that a violation was more likely than not.
--

In her order, Polk said the evidence against Horne and Winn is compelling. She said the phone conversations between them while Winn and Murray discussed the content of the ad via email shows that they coordinated their efforts. Winn’s comments to Murray about how “we” wanted certain changes to the ad show she was consulting with someone else, and Polk insisted that person must be Horne.


“Winn almost always consulted with Horne prior to instructing Murray,” Polk wrote in her Oct. 17 order.
...
“When Horne sent strategic information to a supposedly independent campaign, he intentionally and blatantly broke the barrier that was supposed to exist between his campaign and BLA. The breach is so clear that Horne must have recognized it to be improper,” Polk wrote.
...

Polk ordered Horne and Winn to repay about $400,000 that the prosecutor alleges was illegally contributed to BLA, and they could face a fine of up to $1.2 million if they lose the case. 

Mark Brnovich for Attorney General: Protect Public Prayer!

Friend, There is an assault on our religious liberties! Liberals are suing to stop public prayer! The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the Town of Greece v. Galloway case. Groups like the ACLU are trying to claim that the 1st amendment doesn’t protect public prayer. Unfortunately, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne refused to submit a brief on the merits in support of public prayer. Join us today in support of religious liberties! Consider a donation of $5, $10 or $20 to help us spread our message and protect public prayer! Your Friend, Mark Donate Now Contributions to Mark for AZ - Primary are limited to $912.00 per contributor for the 2014 election cycle. Couples with a joint bank account may contribute a maximum of $1,824 for the 2014 election cycle. Funds from corporations, limited liability companies and labor organizations are prohibited. PACs may contribute up to $912 for the 2014 election cycle and Super PACs may contribute up to $4,560 for the 2014 election cycle. Credit card contributions may be accepted only if the contribution is made from personal funds, and not with a corporate credit card or funds provided by another person. Contributions made by check must be drawn on the account of the actual contributor. Contributions from foreign nationals may not be accepted unless they have permanent residency status in the United States. Contributions are not tax deductible.

Copyright © 2013 Mark For AZ, All rights reserved. You are on this list because you may be interested. Our mailing address is: Mark For AZ PO box 24471 Tempe, AZ 85285 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Congressman Trent Franks Endorses Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General

November 4, 2013                                                 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   Congressman Trent Franks endorses Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General   “Mark will serve with honor, distinction, and integrity.” U.S. Representative Trent Franks, the dean of Arizona’s House delegation, today endorsed Republican Attorney General Candidate Mark Brnovich. "During this trying time in our history, when the foundations of our nation are being eroded by the highest echelon of our national government, it is vital for states to elect leaders who understand and deeply embrace the core ideals that birthed America,” said Rep Franks. “This is especially true of those entrusted with the power to enforce our laws. That is why it is my honor to endorse Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General." "As Arizona’s Attorney General, Mark Brnovich will protect the rights of all Arizonans, and Mark will serve with honor, distinction, and integrity. He will defend our shared values and stand up for the vulnerable. I am confident he has what it takes to fight the increasing federal overreach and protect Arizona's state sovereignty." "Trent Franks is a powerful national voice for conservative principles," said Brnovich. "His commitment to defending the family and the most vulnerable members of our society has been unmatched in this state. I am thankful to call Congressman Franks a friend and proud to count him as a supporter of my Republican candidacy for Arizona Attorney General."   ABOUT MARK BRNOVICH: Raised in Arizona, Mark Brnovich is a graduate of Arizona State University. After law school, Mark prosecuted felonies in the Gang/Repeat Offender Bureau of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and worked as an Assistant Attorney General for Arizona and as Assistant US Attorney for the District of Arizona.  Mark also served his country as Command Staff Judge Advocate for the 153rd Field Artillery Brigade of the Arizona Army National Guard for eight years. Mark met his wife Susan while both were working as prosecutors. They live in Phoenix with their two daughters. ###  For more information, please contact Mark for AZ Campaign Manager Ross Groen at 480-221-7545.

Copyright © 2013 Mark For AZ, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have previously shown interest in political campaign coverage. Our mailing address is: Mark For AZ PO box 24471 Tempe, AZ 85285 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Solar Industry Takes on Crony Capitalism in Arizona

A heated battle is taking place in Arizona between the fledgling solar industry and APS, the  state’s largest energy company, which enjoys a state-granted near-monopoly over energy. In sunny Arizona, it is peculiar that solar energy is being portrayed as the bad guy. Since Arizona is a Republican-dominated state, APS is sneakily buying up influential Republicans, both directly and indirectly, to perpetuate its crony capitalism. The Washington Post refers to these Republicans as  “some of the best pollsters and consultants money can buy.”

The spin goes like this, “stop subsidizing the solar industry.” The word “subsidy” is used to scare Republicans. The solar companies are being compared to Solyndra, the green energy company that went bankrupt despite receiving more than $500 million in loans from the Department of Energy.

The reality is, the solar industry is not being “subsidized.” Energy users who do not use APS power, but use their solar panels instead for power, are simply not being double-charged. When they are not using APS power, but are instead sending unused solar power energy back to the grid for others to use, they receive a rebate. This is known as “net metering” and has been in place since 2009. APS wants to eliminate this, which will essentially have the effect of charging solar users for APS power they do not use.  Instead of receiving 15 cents per kilowatt-hour rebates for power the solar users send back to the grid, APS wants to reduce the rebate to 4 to 10 cents. This would add $50 to $100 a month to the power bills of solar users. The utility also wants to start charging solar users a monthly maintenance fee.

Solar users are saving everyone additional costs. As energy users dependent upon APS decrease their usage and move to solar power, fewer generating stations need to be built, and fewer distribution lines put into place. While it is true that solar users are paying less towards the maintenance costs of APS, it is because they are using less of APS’ services. 

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Media Bias and Conservative Setbacks in the Federal Shutdown

by Andrew Thomas

Following a fortnight of partial federal government shutdown, as Washington returned to business as usual, media and political analysts took the news space and air time formerly ceded to reporting the situation to assessing winners and losers in the national confrontation. Few had little good to say about Republican leaders in Congress, and just as few judged their efforts successful. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media opinion leaders, in particular, roundly condemned the agreement to reopen federal agencies and institutions without concessions from President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress.

Many average conservative citizens around the nation echoed these beliefs and conclusions. The New York Times conducted man-in-the-street interviews of conservatives around the nation and reported a combination of anger, discouragement and bemusement over what had happened. One man in Cleveland, Tennessee, believed “the premise was good,” but found no payoff ultimately for the nation or supporters of the shutdown. A cabdriver in Colorado Springs and a homemaker in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, both bemoaned the impact of the shutdown on the military and local businesses. Fueling this sense of collective letdown were leaders who saw little benefit gained from the previous two weeks of fiscal battles. “Among commentators on the right,” the article noted, “the reaction has been less driven by despair than by anger. In heated language on talk radio and on conservative blogs, many spoke of a winning if difficult strategy sabotaged in the end by weak-willed leadership.”

Ironically, the pages of the Times provided their own compelling and direct explanation of why the shutdown failed to advance Republican aims. In assessing how and why the dispute ended with no substantive progress on debt reduction or limitations of Obamacare, one needed to look no further than the coverage and behavior of the dominant news media themselves to see why the deck was stacked so decisively against the forces of reform.

Read the rest of the article at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

Gun Control Won't Stop School Massacres

Every time there is a mass shooting by a deranged shooter, talks of enacting more gun control measures resurface. On Tuesday, a 12-year-old boy at a middle school in Sparks, Nev., shot and killed a math teacher, Matthew Landsberry, with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Two 12-year-old boys were injured. The teacher, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan, heroically placed himself between the killer and other students and tried to talk the student out of harming others. Sadly, the teacher was unsuccessful and the student killed him then took his own life. None of the school district’s 38 resource police officers were on the school’s campus at the time of the shooting.

The Obama administration responded immediately calling for more gun control measures. But it is extremely unlikely more gun control laws would have prevented this shooting. The current effort to ban “assault rifles” again wouldn’t ban this 9mm pistol. The student got the gun from his parents because they apparently failed to keep it securely locked up. The gun control lobby will clamor for trigger locks and gun safe requirements, claiming they would have prevented this senseless murder  – some insurance companies will not provide home insurance for gun owners unless there are trigger locks in the home – but that doesn’t stop irresponsible individuals from failing to use the trigger locks and gun safes. Passing more gun control laws just means more mass shootings will involve illegal activity.

The problem isn’t guns, it is people. There will always be evil people, and there will always be irresponsible people. In the modern era, parents are permissively and lazily allowing their children to play unlimited violent video games and watch unlimited violent television. Studies have proven over and over again there is a correlation between high levels of these activities and violent behavior in children. As long as parents are allowing these savage mediums to babysit their kids, instead of taking the time to really parent them, some of these children are going to act out violent tendencies.

 Read the rest of the article at PolicyMic

My interview with the NRA's Cam & Co about Obamacare and gun control

Watch Your Guns Around Obamacare

What does gun control have to do with health care? As odd as it seems, Obamacare contains provisions that jeopardize gun ownership, especially for veterans. Anti-gun provisions were added to initial drafts of Obamacare legislation under the pretext of prohibiting people with mental illness – which can include PTSD - from owning guns. Fortunately, the NRA stepped in and got some of the worst language revised last December. Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.prohibits the creation of a firearms database and stops doctors from disclosing or collecting information relating to a patient’s firearms. Ironically, this provision was probably the only positive result of most members of Congress not bothering to read the bill before voting on it.

However, the provision does not go as far as prohibiting doctors from asking their patients if there are any firearms in their home. In January, Obama issued 23 executive actions and orders regarding firearms. Order 16 stressed that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about their firearms, and the fact sheet includes, “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.” What constitutes a “threat of violence” could be very arbitrary. This puts doctors in a difficult position by suggesting they act as pseudo-law enforcement agents. It is damaging to doctor-patient privilege. If doctors have a patient with PTSD or mental illness, and they fail to ask the patient about their firearms, or report them to law enforcement, they could be on the hook later. It encourages them to err on the side of snooping into their patients’ guns. This is especially troubling considered the definition of mental illness keeps expanding.

The state of Florida implemented legislation that would have severely restricted a doctor’s ability to ask a patient about guns at home, but a federal court struck it down as unconstitutional. After the NRA got that provision added, the organization backed off on pressing for further changes, no doubt because trying to get more changes done at that time would have been impossible with the Democratic-controlled Senate and presidency. But there are still areas within our healthcare laws that could prohibit Americans from owning firearms – specifically our veterans.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

AG Tom Horne again found to have violated law, must return $400,000 in campaign contributions

For the second time, a prosecutor has found that liberal Republican Tom Horne violated campaign finance laws by illegally coordinating with crony Kathleen Winn on her independent expenditure committee. Both Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk found the independent expenditures were illegally made in-kind contributions. Polk wrote in part, "\“When Home sent strategic information to a supposedly independent campaign, he intentionally and blatantly broke the barrier that was supposed to exist between his campaign and BLA. The breach is so clear that Home must have recognized it to be improper,” Polk wrote, adding that it “is clear that BLA’s expenditures were based on the needs of the Horne campaign.”

Horne defeated conservative Andrew Thomas for Attorney General in 2010 and then Democrat Felecia Rotellini in the general election. Horne campaigned running nonstop TV ads which claimed that Thomas was under "criminal investigation by the FBI." All he was referring to was the county supervisors' complaints to the DOJ about Thomas and Arpaio. Thomas and Arpaio were ultimately cleared by the DOJ through a grand jury.

Horne, on the other hand, continues to be mired in investigations that aren't going away. The feds are investigating him and he recently pled guilty to a misdemeanor for a hit and run accident, where he slammed into a car while leaving his mistress's house (Horne is married). There may be some more ongoing investigations into that.

Meanwhile, conservative Mark Brnovich is gaining steam against Horne. Inside polling reveals that Horne cannot beat Rotellini in the general election, and conservatives and Tea Parties are lining up behind Brnovich.

Read the ABC-15 article

Deja Vu: The Pretend Debt Ceiling Crisis

The impending debt ceiling vote is much more important than the budget vote of a couple of weeks ago, the delay of which allegedly “shut down government.” This is because the budget vote - which is actually just a temporary continuing resolution - can be resolved by taking out the provision that guts Obamacare. While it would be wonderful to defund Obamacare through this gimmick, sometimes it’s better to take on one battle at a time, rather than try to throw everything in there at once. The pro-life movement has learned this lesson over the years; instead of attempting to pass sweeping, multipart bills against abortion, they’ve learned to propose incremental changes. When they have tried to pack too much into one bill or initiative, it usually ends up defeated.  

The problem is Obama and the Democrats in Congress are now using the government shutdown as a negotiating card on the debt limit. They won’t negotiate with the GOP on the debt ceiling until the GOP backs down on trying to defund Obamacare as part of the budget. The GOP can’t expect to negotiate a win on the budget from a position of weakness. The Democrats control the Senate and the presidency, and to hope to pull off a coup on the budget as the underdog is unrealistic. As we’ve learned from past history, particularly the government shutdowns of 1995-96, a showdown over the government shutdown will most likely end up backfiring on Republicans. Most Americans have no idea how serious the government shutdown is, so they are taking it very seriously. They hear from the left-leaning media that the GOP is continuing to keep it shut down because of insistence on a gimmick to defund Obamacare, and so they blame the GOP.

Republicans would have been better off backing off on the government shutdown, and instead sinking their teeth into the fight over increasing the debt ceiling. There will be a more realistic opportunity to repeal Obamacare in 2016 if the GOP can retake the presidency and possibly the Senate. 

Read the rest of the article at The Christian Post

Brnovich opens campaign with appeal to grassroots conservatives

Here are some excerpts from the Arizona Capitol Times reporting on Mark Brnovich's campaign for Attorney General against scandal-plagued liberal Republican Tom Horne. The Arizona Capitol Times is paid-subscription only, but it's worth the price as the best (and fairest) newspaper in the state. Its Yellow Sheet alone is the best political tipsheet in the state. Horne had the perfect opportunity to stop Brewer's unconstitutional expansion of Obamacare with the Medicaid expansion and didn't do a thing. Brnovich would have stepped in. Horne used to be a liberal Democrat. He can't be trusted. If reelected, we don't know what he will do since he's dishonest.  Remember the SEC issue, cheating on his wife, violating campaign finance laws, even a hit and run. He's the AG, not a Democrat running for NYC mayor.

by Jeremy Duda

Newly minted attorney general candidate Mark Brnovich hit the campaign trail and laid out his case for why GOP voters should choose him over Tom Horne, bashing the incumbent attorney general for legal and ethical problems that have plagued him and alleging that Horne hasn’t done enough to defend conservative principles. 

At an Oct. 7 meeting of the Arizona Project, a north Phoenix-based Tea Party organization, Brnovich urged about two dozen conservative activists to support him over Horne for both philosophical and political reasons. Brnovich resigned from his position as director of the Arizona Department of Gaming on Sept. 20 and filed to run for attorney general several days later.

Philosophically, he said Horne has insufficiently fought federal overreach and violations of states’ rights on issues such as environmental regulations and the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. On the political side, Brnovich said they should support him because he’s the only Republican candidate who can win the general election.

Ultimately it’s Horne’s legal and ethical issues that led some Republicans to seek a challenger in the GOP primary. The Yavapai County Attorney’s Office is investigating the campaign finance allegations against Horne. He pleaded no contest to leaving the scene after backing into a car in a downtown Phoenix parking garage. He is facing a lawsuit in federal court from an employee who alleges that Horne retaliated against her for her political affiliations and for reporting the campaign finance allegations to the FBI. And an FBI report accused him of having an extramarital affair with an employee whom he gave a six-figure job.
 
Brnovich said attorney general candidate Felecia Rotellini and other Democrats are hoping that Horne will be the nominee.

>Brnovich said Horne should have been more aggressive in challenging Obamacare and federal overreach, such as controversial Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station.

Brnovich questioned why Horne didn’t opine on whether Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion plan was subject to a constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds vote for all tax increases, chastised him for his agency’s defense of the Arizona Board of Cosmetology in a lawsuit by a Gilbert spa owner, and several times reminded the crowd that Horne used to be a Democrat.

“We need an attorney general that’s going to be more aggressive in keeping the federal government off our backs,” Brnovich said. “I think the attorney general needs to be much more aggressive in fighting federal overreach.”

Click here for the full article 

Congressman David Schweikert Calls For Civility

Or, read the transcript below. We recommend you watch the speech, though, because Schweikert is an outstanding speaker.

Can We Disagree Without Being Disagreeable? 
I want share something from the heart that actually has disturbed me watching this debate between the House and the Senate over the last few days. It’s time to take a step backwards and reflect on our use of language and tone, and reflect on our civility as a governing body over this last week. 

The President got behind the microphones and was literally talking down the stock market, suggesting that it was time that Wall Street should be concerned. One of the intelligence services officials expressed fear that the furloughed intelligence service officers are now bribable because they are furloughed. I've had members come beside me and use words like 'terrorist,' and 'gun to the head.' To all my brothers and sisters here in Congress and for the blogs and the reporters and the political operatives around this country-- You are better; We are better than this.

Take a step backward and ask why the viciousness and the fear-mongering from the liberals when this argument is actually pretty darn simple?  Those of us on the conservative side believe we have reached out-- over and over-- to negotiate a resolution.  The path to finding a solution is simple.  Senator Reid needs to agree to a conference committee, put the members in a room and let them start talking.   Two years ago, the Democrats lit up the phones in my office demanding that we talk and negotiate on other issues. So why was that demand acceptable in the summer of 2011, but we can’t demand the same today?

Unfortunately, this same rhetoric of fear is now heading towards the debt ceiling debate and the “you're going to default” discussion.  Anyone who says that is looking you in the eyes and lying. Either that or they don't own a calculator.

We've got to understand the math. This country takes in 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in taxes and we pay out 2% in debt coverage. In 2014 we have $1.6 trillion in re-financing. The fact of the matter is, any way you see the model, it’s simply implausible that we would miss making our interest payments.

I understand we have different views. I strongly believe the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” is causing businesses to shift full-time positions to part-time jobs and destroying opportunities for our citizens. But I also agree that we need solutions for individuals with pre-existing conditions.

We can disagree without losing our civility and descending into vicious personal attacks. Let’s elevate the discussion back to facts and data and focus on the real issues.

References: 

My Floor 5 Minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbDP3T7i3O8

The President on the Stock Market: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/02/news/economy/obama-wall-street-ceo/?hpt=po_c1

Senator Harry Reid on Shutdown Tone: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/4/reid-apologizes-nasty-tone-senate-floor/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Trap, Skeet Or Sporting Clays: Which Is Right For You?

Reprinted from the September 2013 issue of Western Shooting Journal

Me with Western Shooting Journal’s shotgun writer, Al Hague, and his Benelli 12-gauge shotgun.

I had the opportunity recently to shoot trap and sporting clays with Western Shooting Journal’s monthly shotgun columnist, Al Hague. I’ve gone skeet shooting before, so I was able to compare and contrast all three. My husband and I met Al at the Seattle Skeet and Trap Club, where SST board member Dave Dalton showed us around, revealing the best the club had to offer.

Both Al and Dave are top shooters, so at first it was a little intimidating. My husband fared slightly better than I, having grown up with shotguns in the Boy Scouts. For those who are new to the clay sports, all three sports involve shooting at moving clay targets that fly up out of a machine. The three sports were created in order to mimic shooting at birds; the targets are also commonly referred to as clay pigeons. 

My husband Brian Symes was a natural, having grown up with shotguns in the Boy Scouts.

SPORTING CLAYS IS the most difficult of the three – but ironically, because it is the most difficult, people take it the least seriously and are more likely to have a good time with it than treat it like a hardcore competition. Al told me it is virtually impossible to hit every target.

Some describe sporting clays as “golf with a shotgun,” because there are many different stations to shoot from, and each is quite different from the other. Nowadays, many ranges don’t bother to mimic the flight path of a bird, but try to make the targets as tricky as possible. The ones that do try to mimic birds in flight will name the various stations accordingly, such as a “grouse station” or “decoy duck” station. Five Stand is a scaled-down version of sporting clays, with only five stations.

Al Hague shooting sporting clays with his Beretta as Dave Dalton from Seattle Skeet and Trap releases the targets.

The best part was having Dave there to help us adjust the target stations – that’s why it’s always wise to get to know the folks running the gun range. Some of the stations had either been inadvertently moved, or purposely moved to make them extremely difficult. Dave knew how to manipulate the stations so we actually stood a decent chance at hitting them.

SHOOTING TRAP INVOLVES targets that fly away from you to the left, straight back, and to the right. You start at a station on the left side and move over a few feet at a time to several other stations, shooting from various angles around a semi-circle. If you are the type of person who is eager to achieve a perfect shooting record, and you have patience, trap may be for you.

Dave Dalton from Seattle Skeet and Trap with his Krieghoff Supersport.

SHOOTING SKEET ALSO requires intense concentration. The targets cross in front of you, unlike trap where they fly away from you. They are shot out of two stations from a variety of angles.

If you’re new to shooting, especially if you’re female or slightly built, here is some advice from me. Consider a lightweight shotgun. After shooting Al’s beautiful Benelli 12-gauge for awhile, my arms were tired. The length of pull was also too long for my arms. It weighed about 8 pounds. Whereas you can find a 12-gauge shotgun for about half that weight. The only drawback is the recoil will be stronger, so make sure you have the proper loads, or you could end up with a little bruising.

A sporting clays team that was ahead of us. Tom Curtis shooting a Blaser, father and daughter team Fred and Rachel Heistuman, and Todd Watson with a Beretta 391. Both Tom and Fred are officers in the fire department.

Overall, I had a great time learning to shoot the other clay targets. Since I am not the most patient person alive, and have poor vision, sporting clays was easily my favorite. I also thoroughly enjoy the outdoors, so walking around the range from one sporting clays station to another was an additional attraction. Shooting with a shotgun is more low-key than shooting with a pistol or rifle, because there is little or no sights to fuss with. Regardless which clay target sport you try, if you go with friends, you will enjoy it.

I, having grown up with shotguns in the Boy Scouts. For those who are new to the clay sports, all three sports involve shooting at moving clay targets that fly up out of a machine. The three sports were created in order to mimic shooting at birds; the targets are also commonly referred to as clay pigeons.

If you enjoyed this article from our paid content, why not buy a subscription? This fall we’re offering a deal of 66% off the news stand price, only $19.95 for 12 issues! SUBSCRIBE NOW