Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 March 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 14

Bolt pulling

The above question got me thinking about the weapons procedure in film and TV. You often see the character loading a shell into their gun pulling the slide back soon after they pull draw the weapon from its holtser. Is that just generally good practice to ensure thay have a full clip round in the chamber before leaping into action (one usually never sees them actually load the weapon), or is it a safety concern to ensure the weapon doesn't go off while withdrawing it from the holster. Of course, I'm assuming what I see in film and TV is a reasonably accurate depiction of police/FBI/etc. procedures. If not, I would be interested in what is the actual recommended procedure in law enforcement. Astronaut (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're getting your terms mixed up considering the following "to ensure thay have a full clip before leaping into action". I'll put the difference between a clip (ammunition) and a magazine (firearms) aside for now. When you see them pull the pistol from a holster, they already have a magazine in the gun. They then pull the slide back to load a round from that magazine into the chamber. For safety's sake, the first round is not chambered when they put the gun into the holster when they get dressed in the morning. It's an extra layer of safety considering that the safety catch could have been flipped and the gun is therefore "live". As for what the official procedure is for the FBI/Police etc., I don't have any references and things may vary by department or organization. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Original wording suitably altered to correct my lack of expertiese with weapons terminology. Another question just occurred to me: If the gun is then not fired, I presume the round in the chamber is removed once the 'action' is over so the gun is once again safer to handle. How would that be done? Astronaut (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove the magazine, then work the action to eject the loaded round, then replace the round in the magazine and reinsert. You first remove the magazine so that clearing the loaded round doesn't load a second one. — Lomn 02:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine most on duty police officers not having a round chambered. I'm pretty sure pulling back the slide is a TV creation. Now perhaps individual officers do things differently, if one was in the office all day; but the general rule is that weapons carried in a holster are already chambered. Of course the hammer (if exposed) probably isn't cocked, and the safety is almost surely on... those two factors insure a lot of safety (many modern weapons either put a bar up so the pin can't strike the round with the safety, or rotate the firing pin out of the way, so even a drop can't accidentally fire the gun). Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cracked ran an article about gun myths recently which included gratuitous cocking. TvTropes mentions the similar Dramatic Gun Cock. Both of these are more about the hammer being pulled back (I don't really know anything about guns, so I'll leave the explanations there), but I get the feeling one or the other may interest some people here... Vimescarrot (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick explanation of the mechanics involved there: If I recall that list they're talking about the audible 'click' heard when someone draws the weapon, or the character visibly cocking the hammer. This is unnecessary in most modern guns because the pull of the trigger both cocks and releases the hammer, the only exception being double-action revolvers and some pistols (DA/SA) where pulling back the hammer is optional, but gives you a smoother trigger pull on the first shot. It is possible to pull back the hammer on most revolvers as well (except hammerless designs, which are somewhat rare in revolvers) but not necessary unless the revolver is "double-action only", and in fact on many semi-automatic handguns it is difficult to cock the hammer with your hands in a shooting position, and potentially dangerous if your thumb should slip, and many have no exposed hammer. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Some smaller pistols, notably the Semmerling, are manual repeating and require the slide to be pulled to chamber each round. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

US Military Pay

I was just having a look at the [US military pay scales and I calculated that a private (E2) only makes $18,000 p.a. base. Is the pay really this low, or am I missing something in my calculations (or are the allowances just huge). For comparison, an private in the Australian army makes $40k base in their first year, up to $70k base after 10 years services, and this is before the $10k service allowance is added... Seems to be a massive discrepancy... 58.165.200.147 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that all the needs of a soldier are met by the military, such as housing, food, clothing, education, and medical care; $18,000 doesn't sound so bad. On the contrary, the $40,000 sounds rather high. Do Aussie soldiers have to pay for any of those items that US soldiers get for free ? If so, this might explain the diff. Also note that US soldiers get lots of "bonus" payments, like a sign-up bonus, re-enlistment bonus, combat pay, etc. StuRat (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of other notes: married service members get additional allowances for housing, etc. Also, most enlisted personnel make it to E4 or E5 within 3 years with corresponding pay increases. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian army pay is particularly high by world standards, twice that in the UK (which pays about $22,000 at current rates), and apparently from a desire to get the best recruits.[1] The USA has many more troops even taking into account its larger population: according to List of countries by number of troops, Australia has 57,000 active troops (not just army), the UK 170,000 and the USA 1,580,000. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus the Australian Army gave a cook a free nose job and the Navy free boob jobs, to build self-confidence no less.[2] Unlike American soldiers, some lucky Aussies got to be more than they could be (naturally). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Morale improvement at its finest. Googlemeister (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One also provided by the US armed forces at least as of 2004 according to [3] (found from [4]) although when it comes to breast enlargements they must provide their own implants. According to that source, the official reasoning is it's not a perk but intended to let their surgeons practice. Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they could get Kevlar breast implants, and kill two birds with one stone ? (Or would that be to save one "bird" from two "stones" ?).  :-) StuRat (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

IRS Taxes Levy on LLC's

Gentlemen,

I have a couple of very interesting question to whoever may consider capable of answer it in the category of Taxes. I owe approximately U$40,000.00 in personal taxes to the IRS since 2006 which, by very own personal reasons I have not been able to pay. In my struggle for life, I formed in 2008 a small Contractor kind of business under a LLC type of organization. I do not owe taxes under my LLC because business activity has been extremely limited anyway. In 2009, the IRS put a levy on my personal bank account but, since I was by then on unemployment and I had only $490.00 on my personal check account, I decided to talk to them and convinced them that I was going through a difficult time therefore I could not afford to pay them neither to have my personal check account to be affected. They agreed to my explanation and they stopped any collection activity under the promise that as soon as I was able to get a job and be able to pay them I would do so. so my questions are: 1 - Can the IRS, based up on my personal taxes debt since 2006, put a levy on my LLC bank account in which I keep a average balance of $2,500.00 ??? 2 - If the answer is yes to the previous question and since I'm the only member on my LLC so far, including one more member of my family into my LLC, would help avoid any levy from the IRS to my LLC bank account ???

I would appreciate any time invested to answer my questions

Mar. 14 - 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmart14 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Email address removed - any answers will appear below and you must return here to read them. Your question sounds rather close to a request for legal advice which we are not able to provide. Rather then seek the assistance of random strangers on the internet, you might be better off consulting your lawyer or other qualified professional. Astronaut (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a request for legal advice, and it is the policy of the Reference Desk not to provide legal advice. I'm sorry, but we can't help you. John M Baker (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. administrative law and the legal status of findings by an Inspector General

Hi all. I've been working on our this article about a former Director of the United States A.T.F. who served in that role for a couple of years under George W. Bush, but resigned just prior to the release of a highly critical report about him by the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. A question has come up on that article's talk page as to whether the statements made in the Inspector General's report are adjudicative or not, i.e. whether they're "findings of fact" or just allegations. To clarify, the report did find violations of ethics CFRs that "constituted misconduct" in one area, and very substantial mismanagement ( not misconduct, note ) in financial and personnel matters.

But it's my impression from the research I've already done that the findings published as the result of an investigation conducted by one of the Offices of the Inspector General (OIGs) aren't "just allegations" at all, but are rather "findings of fact", i.e. that they're in themselves adjudicative, and thus directly actionable in terms of firing, demotion, sanctions, or whatever without further judicial process. My understanding is that (unless the affected employee appeals the findings to an administrative law court) no further adjudication or hearings are required or undertaken. I base this understanding in part on a section in one of our articles on administrative law that says, I think, that an Inspector General has both rule-making and adjudicative authority.

It's also my impression from reading the 1978 Act that established the OIGs, a link from our Inspector General article, that findings of violations of U.S. Federal criminal codes must be disclosed to the U.S. Attorney General. My assumption is that if it's a criminal matter, then the Attorney General would decide whether to prosecute in a criminal court. As a side issue - I suppose that an OIG's findings re criminal violations (only) would thus not be considered adjudicative? I ask this last question merely out of personal curiosity.

Btw, I'll just reassure folks that no one is currently proposing to add content to the article directly from the report itself, a primary source: There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that document this affair.

Is anyone able to confirm or correct what I've stated above as to my current understanding of this, particularly as to whether the findings of an Inspector General with respect to questions of CFR violations and with respect to allegations of mismanagement are adjudicative or whether they merely constitute unsubstantiated allegations? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to help sort a rather complex question.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that either of these is a helpful way to think about an Inspector General's report. A report reflects the findings of a full investigation, so it should be more than merely "unsubstantiated allegations." However, the report is not adjudicative in either substance or effect: The subject does not receive a hearing, and there must be additional process before the assessment of criminal or, in most cases, administrative penalties. John M Baker (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd assumed that findings by an IG of criminal wrongdoing would require a trial in a criminal court ... but it's your understanding that an OIG report couldn't be used as a basis for a supervisor to demote or fire a subordinate, for example, without an administrative law hearing to support doing so? If that's correct then I guess I'm still a little confused: What is the intended use of such a report?

Or to phrase the same question more usefully, the OIG report in the case I'm interested in said, in its "Recommendations" section: "Because [the subject of the investigation] resigned as the ATF Director on August 4, 2006, we make no recommendations regarding his actions." Do you know who or what they would have been making recommendations to? More broadly, I'm not sure I understand to whom such a report is actually directed. I suppose to the AG in criminal matters, but what about in non-criminal ones?

No worries if you don't know, of course; this is not really something I'd expect even an expert like yourself to necessarily be informed of. If it helps, btw, the particular OIG in this instance was the one assigned to the Department of Justice. Thanks for taking the time to read that initial very long post, and to comment; I really appreciate it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

When an agency makes a determination which has particular applicability and affects individual rights or interests, it is an adjudication. 5 U.S.C. § 551(7) defines "adjudication" as "agency process for the formulation of an order," and § 551(6) defines "order" as the "whole or part of a final disposition, whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form, in a matter other than rule making but including licensing." Not all adjudications require a hearing. Indeed, an informal adjudication that a landlord may increase rents in public housing without a hearing for those affected is constitutional under the 5th Amendment. See Paulsen v. Coachlight Apartments Co., 507 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1974).[5] Because the fact finding of the Inspector General did not contain an order which would affect an individual right, I would say that they would not constitute an adjudication, even though the findings of fact may later be used in a criminal or civil proceeding by the same agency, or could even later involve the same individual in a prosecutorial role. See International Tel. & Tel. Corp., Communications Equipment & Systems Div. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 419 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1975).[6] Gx872op (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The report is a report to departmental management, which in this case would be the Attorney General, but in his managerial capacity as head of the Department of Justice rather than in his (closely related) capacity as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. So it would be for the Attorney General to take action in response to the report. The Inspector General's report could not, say, remove the ATF Director from office or fine him for violations of departmental regulations.

I'm not familiar with the personnel procedures applicable to the ATF Director. It sounds like it's probably a political appointment, and that the Director serves at the pleasure of the President. In that case, the President or the Attorney General certainly would be justified in firing the Director based on an adverse report from the Inspector General.

If there were an administrative proceeding to assess an administrative penalty, such as a civil fine, against the Director, it would be dependent on the rules of the administrative tribunal as to whether the Inspector General's report would be admissible. If there were a civil or criminal court proceeding against him, the report would not be admissible. John M Baker (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gx872op and John M Baker: I'm often in awe of the collective expertise Wikipedia represents, and both of your responses in this case just reinforce that. Gx872op, thanks for your detailed answer, with case cites, no less! I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "or could even later involve the same individual in a prosecutorial role", though. John, you're correct that the ATF Director serves at the pleasure of the President; the appointment is made by the Attorney General, I believe. I'm curious, though: The two of you appear (?) to be in disagreement re the admissibility of the OIG report in a civil or criminal court proceeding. Is that just an apparent difference of opinion, because there's something I haven't understood, or a real one?  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where the IG report specifically makes no findings of any violation of law, does the "adjudicative" aspect become a tad moot? Collect (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Asked and answered, Collect. The two attorneys who responded above have already said that the OIG's findings of fact aren't adjudicative in nature since they didn't represent an "agency process for the formulation of an order". But when I disclosed that I'd posted this question I asked that you refrain from carrying over your wish to exclude unflattering facts from the Carl Truscott article here. If you believe that due weight policy supports your wish, you can start a thread at the NPOV or BLP noticeboard, but I'd respectfully suggest that the reference desk is not the venue to carry on that effort.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gx872op and John M Baker: It doesn't have direct relevance to our article, of course, since that will just be based on what reliable sources have said, but the foregoing does raise one interesting question. Besides the OIG's findings concerning mismanagement, the report found that Truscott violated multiple ethics regulations, 5 CFR § 2635.702 (Use of public office for private gain), to name just one. Is it correct under those circumstances to say, as the editor above does, that the report "makes no findings of any violation of law"?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I already knew your version - I was asking a specific question in the trust that it would get specifically answered. Your assertion that it has no "relevance" is, unfortunately, directly contrary to my understanding of the issue. Placing words in the keyboards of others is not my style, and I would like to see how others specifically answer the question I posed here at the "reference desk". Thank you most kindly. And, in case you did not know it, I made no improper comments here at all, whilst you seem to think WP is a battleground (sigh). Collect (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's "reprehensible" of me to be so hard to work with, I know. And since it's so easy to delude oneself into believing that it's all someone else's fault, I appreciate your reminder that it's my own "horrid" behavior that's at blame. No doubt your consideration in matters like this explains why your block log has so few entries.

Seriously now, I understand that you're carrying a grudge over my part in the discussion that ended in your block last October, but it really is time to put that behind you. Since you don't want me to post to your talk I don't have much alternative to making this request on a more public page, but you're welcome to reply on my own talk page − as I've told you repeatedly when you've made similar comments − to avoid cluttering this thread with off-topic content, if you have any interest in trying to resolve whatever your problem with me might be.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gx872op and I are not really in disagreement, although our wording certainly makes it look that way. Depending on departmental rules, an Inspector General's report (or similar document) may be admissible in an administrative proceeding. In that case, the governmental agency is the finder of fact. The agency's ruling may be appealed through the court system, and it will not be thrown out simply because it relied on the report.

However, it is also possible for a case to be adjudicated entirely in the court system. In that event, the trial court is the finder of fact. An Inspector General's report, if offered in evidence to prove the findings stated therein, would not be admissible in court. John M Baker (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, John; I imagine it must be a bit tedious to try to answer questions from laypersons who, like myself, have only the vaguest idea of the basic principles, e.g. of the distinction between the various kinds of courts that can try cases. I'm thinking there are criminal courts, civil courts, and administrative courts - or at least ALJ hearings. My understanding when you say "administrative proceeding", then, is to infer "a hearing in an administrative law court". Is that a correct interpretation?

And ( I'll quit bugging you after this, I promise :-) do you mind addressing the question as to whether an ethics violation under a CFR is a "violation of law" or not? Or is it naive to phrase my question that way; perhaps there's some basic principle I'm missing? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother anwering these questions if I didn't want to do it, so don't worry that you don't already know the answers.

An administrative proceeding is a proceeding before an administrative agency, typically to determine whether you broke laws or regulations that it administers. This is, in theory, a less formal proceeding than one before a court. It's typically structured so that there is an initial hearing before an administrative law judge, with an opportunity to appeal to the agency's board (if it has one) and then further appeals through the court system.

Whether an ethics violation under the Code of Federal Regulations is a "violation of law" is going to depend on what the regulation says, what the violation was, and what you mean by "violation of law." John M Baker (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your extensive help, John; I appreciate your generosity very much.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullets and cartridges

Do all bullets leave a cartridge behind, that has to be eventually ejected? In the films I've watched where people shoot pistols and revolvers, I never recall seeing a cartridge being ejected with each shot. I thought that all of the bullet left the gun when fired, but is this untrue? Thanks 92.15.11.100 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You see cartridges being ejected many times. Automatic rifles are often seen with empty cartridges being dispensed like confetti, in old cop shows the hero will dispense with six empty cartridges from his .38 before picking another full sett from his belt, and empty cartridges are often found as evidence that a sniper was on that rooftop. Astronaut (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that revolvers do not eject cartridges automatically. They remain in the cylinder until the shooter clears them manually during the reloading process. — Lomn 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that little brass tube that gets ejected is called a case, or cartridge case; a cartridge is the full unfired round (case, bullet, primer, powder propellant). Almost all guns fire cased ammunition, but there are a few that fire caseless ammunition, which leave nothing to be ejected (but not the regular handguns you see in movies). If you see a movie prop gun fire and not eject a case (and it's not a revolver, as noted above) then it may be a simple prop with a small squib in the barrel (where the report of the gun will be added in post-production), as proper blank-firing weapons can complicate production (they might need a licenced person to supervise them, the sound is unpleasantly loud in a small room, and there may be legal issues). Such a toy gun wouldn't eject a case. On the flipside, as Astronaut notes, many movie guns do eject casings. Indeed, some directors (e.g. The Wachowskis) see cinematic value in the fall of the spent cases, having them clang with unexplicable solemnity as they land, like the bells of Buddhist shrines. I'm convinced that the lobby shootout scene of The Matrix has far more spent cases than gunshots.-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I found you a picture. Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The huge guns on ships also eject cartridges which are humongous.AerobicFox (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The huge guns are caseless. See File:Animated gun turret.gif. The illustration shows a 15-inch gun, the British used cartridges on gun as large as 6-inch in the 1880-1900 era but the largest now seem to be 4.5-inch guns using a cartridge weighing 81-lbs. See List of British ordnance terms#QF. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Large guns on battleships, cruisers etc., used cloth bags of gunpowder which were rammed into the breech of the gun after the projectile was rammed into the gun, by a hydraulic rammer. Edison (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My dad has a 3" case from one of those QF guns, which he uses as an umbrella stand... I want it. :| Worm^TT 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely this one. Alansplodge (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the 5" guns used cases for the propellant, though I think the projectile was not in the case. Googlemeister (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

El Salvador is much richer than Nicaragua

To my surprise these neighboring countries stand far apart in terms of GDP per capita. $4000 v. $1000. I checked the Economy of El Salvador section and found that El Salvador has the largest migrant worker population in the US of any Central American country. Nicaragua has about 1/5 as many migrants as El Salvador. Furthermore, according to the article many Salvadoreans who receive remittance from the US eschew the lowest paying work which is taken over in some cases by Nicaraguan migrants. So if there is no lack of willingness to migrate and the shining relative example of Salvadorean prosperity why don't more Nicaraguans just migrate to the US? (I know migration is dependent on chains of previous nationals who have already settled in the US but a few hundred thousands Nicaraguans are in the US so there is a support network.)

Tumblelatinamerica (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Nicaragua is the outlier or if it's El Salvador. There's 1 Nicaraguan-born person in America for every 26 people in Nicaragua. That's more or less in line with the numbers for Guatemala, Honduras and Panama. But the ratio for El Salvador is 1:7.5. Our article Salvadoran American says the civil war in that country led to a lot of emigration, largely to the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mwalcoff is onto something. The Salvadoran civil war in the 1980s led to a large migration of Salvadoran refugees to the United States, who were sheltered in many cases by religious groups and ultimately were, in many cases, able to gain asylum or otherwise legalize their status in the United States. Although Nicaragua had a civil conflict during the 1980s, it was not nearly as wrenching and bloody as the Salvadoran conflict. Also, because the United States sponsored anti-government insurgents in Nicaragua who fought against the popularly elected Nicaraguan government, large sectors of the Nicaraguan population at the time saw the United States as an aggressor and were disinclined to move to a country that they saw as hostile. So, a legacy of the 1980s is a relatively large Salvadoran population in the United States, larger proportionally than any other Central American migrant population, and also comprising a larger share of legal migrants. In many U.S. metropolitan areas (especially in California), these large Salvadoran communities are able to absorb migrants more readily than the smaller and less rooted communities from other Central American countries. Marco polo (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)