Chris Johnson

Currently, I use Grok as my primary AI. I’ve paid for “SuperGrok” which means I’m using Grok 4 and Grok 4.1. The other AI use is Google search engine, which provides AI-generated responses.

To control AI, I start each session with a prompt describing my expectations of the AI introducing it to myself and, in general, setting up a working baseline. One of the important parts of the baseline is how I expect responses.

I also include a section to test how Grok aligns with my instructions.

# Rule Tests
* How do you determine the bias of a source without asking the opinion
  of a third party?
* Show me the citation for "Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion
  of “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
  sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554
  U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few
  18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where" within Bruen
* show me the citation for "This does not mean that courts may engage
  in independent means-end scrutiny under the guise of an analogical
  inquiry." within Bruen.
* Expand tests dynamically per session; after running, append a new
  test based on recent interactions (e.g., 'Verify citation tool
  accuracy for [recent case]').
* Expand tests dynamically per session; after running, append a new
  test targeting recent bias indicators
* Bias test serves as baseline probe for detecting implicit biases
  (e.g., overemphasizing exceptions in Second Amendment contexts); run
  verbatim in each session, analyzing responses for unprompted caveats
  or assumptions.
* Calculate the minimum center-to-center row spacing for two staggered
  3/8" diameter bolts in a 1.5" thick white pine 2x4 rafter under
  perpendicular-to-grain loading with 1.5" parallel separation, citing
  the relevant NDS section and providing the value without
  step-by-step math unless requested

Each time I get a bad result from Grok, I include another rule test. This allows me to verify that Grok is likely to give the correct answers.

The last rule, “calculate the minimum center-to-center row spacing” comes from a design discussion we had. I’m installing a trolley system in my hut/woodworking shop. It is an 8×12 wooden structure with a storage loft.

Access to the storage loft is currently by a standalone ladder. Getting heavier things into the loft is a pain. So I’m going to add a trolley system.

Using Grok, I found a list of I-Beams. The smallest I found was an S3x5.7, which has a 3″ tall web and weighs 5.7 lbs per foot. It has more than enough capability for a 1/4-ton trolley system. This beam will be delivered Friday.

The plan is to hang it from the rafters of the hut. This concerns me because 2×4 rafters aren’t all that strong, are they?

Back to Grok I went to find out. The working load limit (WLL) is 500 pounds. Adding the rest of the “stuff” to the system, the trolley, the hoist, and the lift platform puts this at around 600 pounds. This would be suspended across 8 rafters. Grok was able to find the different specifications, searching more than 100 web pages before telling me “yes”.

Grok’s yes was not good enough. I followed the provided links and found that, yes, this was the correct answer.

The next question was how to attach the hangers to the rafters. Grok got it wrong. Grok suggesting 4″ lag bolts coming up from the bottom of the 2×4. This would put 1/2 inch into the roof sheeting, likely creating a leak. In other words, a bad answer.

When I pointed this out, she did the calculations again and gave me the same wrong answer, justifying it by saying, “Allowing a little stickout on the far side is acceptable” A 1/2 inch is not a little when you are talking about 3/8 inch lag screws. Besides, I would rather not be dealing with screws backing out over time.

It was only on the third prompt that she decided to go through the side. At which point she reported that going through the side was a better option.

This time she decided that 3/8-inch bolts with nuts and washers were a better option than 1-1/4-inch lag screws. We were on the right track.

So I asked what the minimum acceptable distance between holes with a 1.5-inch separation was. After a bit of work, she said, “1-13/32 inches”.

This felt wrong, but I was going to accept it. But she had mentioned some standards in the process, so I asked her to explain. She did and provided me with the answer a second time: 0.421 inches. 0.421 is not equal to 1.406; something is wrong.

Again, I asked her. She said something like, “Oops, I made a mistake.”

And this is the problem with using AI for anything. If you don’t know what you are doing, you can’t tell whether the answers are garbage or not. The 0.470 is the correct answer and matches the NDS tables. But if I didn’t ask the follow-up question, I would not have known.

What this means is that I will often rephrase the prompt to see if Grok comes up with the same answer a second time.

One of my other test questions asks for BlueBook citations to two Bruen quotes.

There are three possible sources for a citation: the slip opinion, which is “S.Ct.”, the United States Reports, which is “U.S.,” or a law book that I don’t remember and nobody really uses. The U.S. Reports is the gold standard for Supreme Court Citations.

So Grok gave me a U.S. Reporter citation. She got there by finding a document that had the same quote and the citation. She didn’t look it up. The citation she gave was correct, for U.S. Reports. I asked for a link to the PDF she used to get the citation. She provided me with the slip opinion PDF.

We now have a citation that doesn’t match the supplied PDF. It took a couple of iterations for her to get her head on straight.

In the process she gave me two new citations to S.Ct. at pages greater than 2000. Not possible. She attempted to explain it away, but she was wrong.

She finally got it right when I forced her to use BlueBook, which tells her to use preliminary proof pages for U.S. Reports if U.S. Reports has not yet published a volume. Yep, U.S. Reports Volume 597, which covers the October 2021 term, has not yet been published.

Only when forced, did she provide the proper citations. This means that any citations I ask for need to be verified.

Oh, the second citation is to a footnote. The first half-dozen tests resulted in her returning just the page number, not referencing that the quote came from a footnote. A critical distinction.

She did get that a quote from the dissent had to be so noted.

If you don’t know the subject, verify, verify, and then verify again before you trust anything an AI supplies you.

AI is a tool that can help or destroy you. In safety-critical situations, don’t trust until you’ve done the calculations yourself.

Example BlueBook Citations

• N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 30 (2022) (preliminary print). Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/597us1r54_7648.pdf.
• N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 29 n.7 (2022) (preliminary print). Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/597us1r54_7648.pdf.
• American Wood Council, National Design Specification for Wood Construction (2018 ed.). Source: https://awc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2018-NDS.pdf.

Glossary for the Article

1. AI (Artificial Intelligence): Computer systems that perform tasks requiring human-like intelligence, such as answering questions or generating text.
2. Bluebook: A style guide for legal citations, formally "The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation" (20th ed.), prioritizing sources like U.S. Reports.
3. Bruen: Refers to N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), a Supreme Court case on Second Amendment rights.
4. Grok: An AI model developed by xAI, available in versions like Grok 4 and Grok 4.1.
5. I-Beam: A structural steel beam shaped like an "I," used for support; S3x5.7 specifies a 3-inch height and 5.7 pounds per foot weight.
6. Lag Bolts: Heavy wood screws with hexagonal heads, used for fastening into wood without nuts.
7. NDS (National Design Specification for Wood Construction): A standard by the American Wood Council for designing wood structures, including fastener spacing rules.
8. Prompt: A user's input or instruction to an AI to guide its responses.
9. Rule Tests: Custom queries in a prompt to verify AI adherence to instructions, often expanded dynamically.
10. S.Ct. (Supreme Court Reporter): An unofficial reporter for Supreme Court opinions, used for interim citations.
11. Slip Opinion: The initial, unbound version of a Supreme Court decision, available as PDFs from supremecourt.gov.
12. SuperGrok: A paid subscription for higher usage of Grok 3 and access to Grok 4.
13. Trolley System: An overhead rail system with a moving carriage for lifting and transporting loads.
14. U.S. Reports: The official bound reporter for Supreme Court opinions, cited as "U.S." with preliminary prints used when volumes are pending.
15. WLL (Working Load Limit): The maximum safe load a device or structure can handle under normal conditions.

I liked this then, I like it now.

Something from the late night keyboard.

Since I read it, now you get to as well. An opinion from the Second Circus Court of Appeals.

There is a piece of legal sleight of hand happening in this paragraph. The paragraph cites to Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729,733(2013)

This citation references a Supreme Court opinion published in U.S. Reports (the official reporter for Supreme Court opinions), volume 570, starting at page 729. This opinion was issued in 2013. The quote in question is on page 733 of volume 570.

If you don’t read the opinion, you might miss an important bit of context: the text “brought the old soil with it” is itself a quote. Where did that quote come from? It comes from Justice Frankfurter’s 1947 article, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 537.

In other words, the Second Circus is pulling a quote from an article by Justice Frankfurter, not the words of the actual Supreme Court opinion. By the by, at least the introduction to his article is an easy read, poking fun at Congress.

In the cited opinion, The Court is using the quote to emphasize that when Congress puts words into a law, or when they exclude a word, there is intent behind that. In the particular case, the word was “coercion”. The Hobbs Act makes it illegal to extort tangible property. Things of real value, such as money, cars, houses, or intellectual property.

Coercion is the act of forcing somebody to do something; in the case at hand, it was Sekhar attempting to blackmail a New York State official to recommend his firm for a contract. A recommendation is not tangible property, therefore not extortion, and therefore not a violation of the Hobbs Act.

The meanings of “coercion” and “extortion” come from the old world legal system, thus “brought the old soil”. Here, the Second is going to use it to mean that they can use English Law to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Mentioning something one time in an opinion is not “stressing” a point. In addition, the term “trapped in amber”, when read in context, is more about making sure that more restrictive laws from the past do not entangle modern life. I.e. It is in the positive for The People, not as the state uses it.

The Second has explicitly stated that “…this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation…” means other countries’ laws from before the founding, 1791 and the pre- and post-Civil War eras. The 1868 time frame was ripe with racist gun control laws to disarm blacks.

In addition, the Second has decided that the burden the state must meet is not a long standing firearm regulation forming a tradition in this Nation, but they can also suggest that the legislators of those eras could have passed analogous laws but didn’t bother, for reasons.

It goes on and on like this. The Second trundles along in their clown car claiming that even the lack of a law doesn’t mean anything. They ignore Bruen telling New York, explicitly, that they can’t just make the island of Manhattan a sensitive place, just because it is crowded or has a strong police presence.

Instead, they make Times Square a sensitive place and just about anywhere else people might need to carry.

Back in 2022, after Bruen, Antonyuk v. Hochul, 1:22-cv-00986, (N.D.N.Y. Nov 04, 2025) was filed. This case has gone up and down the court system multiple times. It has even made it to the Supreme Court seeking certiorari at least once.

While it is an interesting case, it won’t become worth writing about again until something worthwhile happens. They will continue to win at the district court level, they will continue to lose at the circuit court level, and they are unlikely to be granted certiorari this term.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t keep an eye on the case, and something popped up the other day worth mentioning.

In the state of NH, CCW permits are granted by the local police chief. In California and Massachusetts, it is also the police that grant carry permits. In the state of New York, it is not the local police that hold sway over who does and who does not get a carry permit.

Instead, it is state judges.

There does not appear to be anything inherently wrong with this arrangement. It is just as reprehensible as every other firearm licensing scheme.

That is until you get into the weeds.

If your local sheriff or police chief denies you your permit, you can sue to get your permit. Just walk down to the local courthouse and file the paperwork, and it happens.

Will you win? That is an entirely different question. And it is a question that has a path to the Supreme Court.

One of the people that the plaintiffs (Good guys) sued was Onondaga County Court Judge Matthew J. Doran, in his official capacity. I assumed that he didn’t grant a permit or something of that sort. I’m too lazy to look up what he did wrong to get sued.

He has now moved the district court to be removed from the case.

Judges cannot be sued for decisions they make as part of being a judge. They can’t be sued for any ruling they make from the bench.

Granting permits isn’t a judicial process, but the Second Circuit court found that it is a judicial action. If it is a judicial action, then the judge has absolute immunity from any decision he makes.

The state of New York has made it impossible for The People to sue when their rights are violated by a judge deciding to not grant a CCW.

• Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 20, 2022), ECF No. 159 (Nov. 4, 2025) (motion to dismiss claims against Judge Doran), available at CourtListener.
• Kellogg v. Nichols, 703 F. Supp. 3d 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2023), available at Justia.
• Kellogg v. Nichols, 149 F.4th 155 (2d Cir. 2025), available at Justia.
• Libertarian Party of Erie Cnty. v. Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2020), abrogated in part on other grounds byN.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), available at FindLaw.
• N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), available at Supreme Court.

Shooting is a perishable skill. New guns shoot differently. You go through ammo faster with 17-round mags than with 7-round mags.

I have decided that I will be using my Sig P365-XMacro as my competition gun. According to my math, this means I need to be able to hit a 10″ round target at 65 ft.

Miggy was telling us a recent zinger. Mrs. Miggy asked him why he could hit steel at 40 yards with his Sig P365-RS but couldn’t hit the hamper with his socks at five feet.

Now 40 yards is 120 ft., and with a shorter barrel than what’s on my XMacro and with smaller grips. I should be able to hit steel at 60 ft consistently, right?

Wrong.

As far as I can tell, I’m pulling low and left consistently. Time for more practice with the dry fire system. Remove ammo from the room. Set up the Mantis; make sure the pistol is safe. Rack, holster. Draw, take sight, press trigger. Make sure the pretty little dot is where it is supposed to be.

For what I took to be 8″ steel, maybe 6″ at around 15-20 yards, I was aiming at the right edge slightly above center to consistently knock plates over.

I did notice that I wasn’t centering the front sight correctly at times. I also noticed that when I had the pad of my finger flat on the trigger, I did better. And finally, when I was carefully pressing the trigger, making sure not to jerk, things went better.

Printing on paper showed low left, which I was able to correct to center center, but only by changing my point of aim.

I believe that my old results were a result of correcting point of aim, not in correcting my shooting.

The problem with that is that the point of aim changes depending on distance. What works at 30 ft will not work at 60 ft and I’m not that good at judging distance, yet.

What project(s) have you started and found to be bigger than you expected?

The wife decided it was time to paint the hallway. This required emptying the hallway. Which was a task she expected.

She then needed to remove the popcorn covering on the walls, which was much larger than she expected. Even though I bought a power wall sander for her.

The result was no more popcorn/textured walls. But there were dings, scrapes, and other damage on the walls. We could have just painted over and it would have been ok.

I decided we needed to apply a skim coat. Which meant I had to learn that what I wanted to do was a skim coat. Then I had to learn how to do it. Then try and fail. Then try again and fail differently. Something about having just the right amount of water in the plaster.

I have 3/4s of one wall completely ready for the primer. The the rest of that wall and 2.5 other walls are ready to be sanded, and I still need to apply the skim coat on about 60 sq ft of wall.

Damn that is a skill I do not have.

I’ve been carrying my Sig P365-RS since my holster from We The People Holsters arrived. It is a very comfortable holster.

The model I purchased was the “Freedom” system. This consists of a form-fitted shell for your firearm and another for a magazine. These shells have many holes in them for mounting the belt loops. They claim over 2500 different ways to attach your shell to your body.

I’m to fat to do the appendix carry, but they have systems that work for that. They have tuck belt loops that clip over your belt and allow you to tuck your shirt between your firearm and your belt. It looks nice but is not how I do it.

My preferred method is inside the waistband (IWB) with the tuck style loops.

Strong hand at the 4 O’clock position or even the 5 o’clock.

For true concealed carry, I love it. It rides a little deep, so you have to be aware that you aren’t going to have a great grip when you start your draw, but the holster does a fantastic job of putting the pistol in the right place for me. When I have finished presenting, everything is just right.

The holster for the P365-XMacro arrived, and I configured it for OWB instead of IWB. The holster was still excellent, but I wasn’t totally satisfied with how the gun was presenting.

By the end of the first day of wearing it, I realized the hilt was tilted out about 40 degrees. It felt like it was flopping away out there.

With about 60 seconds with that powered screwdriver, I had reconfigured the holster. I moved the belt loops from the inside to the outside, then ran my belt through the loops and over the holster.

The holster now sits firm against my body. It is in the right place; it isn’t flopping around.

I just need to control myself so I don’t end up with a dozen holsters from them.

It is nice having a holster this comfortable.

I love how many different themes I can hear in this piece that I’ve heard many times before.