More on the waycool new USAF uniform
Follow this link or this one. Both have photos.

Question that remains unanswered: are they contemplating pin-on rank insignia? Can't see any on the photos.

He could have used an ought-six but he didn't
In Publicola's thorough follow-up on one Mr Gates in South Carolina, a correspondent asserted that discharging a shotgun at criminal trespassers would endanger Gates's neighbors. Don't buy the argument.

At a moment when lethal force is being exchanged recklessly by criminal trespassers, you would be a fool to use less-than-lethal force to disabuse them of it. You will use lethal force, and you'd better bring enough of it.

Now that you've taken the decision to use lethal rather than less-than-lethal force, you can choose which type, platform, caliber, and so forth to minimize the risk to any innocents nearby.

The shotgun fits this bill better than anything else. Its ratio of P_Kintended to P_Kunintended is very high.

Summary:
Mr Gates was duly diligent in his choice of a shotgun for the application, compared to other firearms he could have chosen.

Erratum: nobody posted in reply to Publicola about the potential of Mr. Gates to endanger any of his neighbors by discharging a shotgun at said trespassers. Of course, homeowners are responsible for where their bullets fall, and the choice and employment of firearms to defend homes must include such calculations.

Reading about this incident and how Mr. Gates was treated by the authorities caused me to remark on those risks and how the shotgun firing shot (versus slugs, or the choice of another firearm) mitigates them. This would be a valid point to make to anyone inclined to second-guess him, especially those who have the power to indict him or seize his property.

It is an indication of the quality of readership that this point was not raised---gunbloggers know better. I apologize for the error, and thank Publicola for bringing it to my attention.

Give them back now
Thanks to Publicola, who forwards Rachel Lucas's post regarding a man whose firearms were seized by police after he shot gunfighting trespassers in his front yard. Police seized all of them, not just the shotgun actually used to quell the affray, though they concede that no crime was committed. Publicola also ably dispels the notion that some forensic evidence could be collected from the shotgun's seizure, or that it would even be worthwhile.

They seized not just the shotgun he used in the shooting, but all of them.

Cut this the hell out. Give them back now, with an apology to him and termination for whoever made the decision to disarm him.

On second thought: whoever moved to disarm the homeowner, it's now your turn to sit on his porch with nothing but a cordless phone and a flashlight for the next 72 hours. No hardshirt either, asshole. If you live through that, then you're fired.

If this happened to me
I would hope to have the kind of balls this guy has. My first action would be, as G Gordon Liddy has advised, don't hand them over to the cops. If the cops insist that I must be separated from my weapons, I'm transferring them to my lawyer for safekeeping. Possible outcomes:

• Worst: I am officially identified as a Bad Person and lose the right to own them. The lawyer sells them and I get the proceeds.
  
• Bad: the lawyer returns them when the bullshit is over.
  
• As if we have an RKBA: the lawyer pushes back hard enough that I don't give them up.
  

What does a lawyer have to say about this?

Update on the so-called sexist singular
Your humble correspondent found the following notice refreshing, in Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Protection, Air Force TTP(I) 3-2.46:

Unless this publication states otherwise, masculine nouns and pronouns do
not refer exclusively to men.

Visible in the properties box for this pdf, the author of the document is a woman.