Chris Johnson

professional carpenters and do it yourselfers need good tools

Flat, Straight and Square

Many years ago, I started to build a laminated wood workbench from hard maple. It was very slow-going. I think I have what I finished up in the rafters of the shop.

It is only 9 inches wide. It is not smooth, it is not flat. It is unlikely to be straight, and it is not square.

At the time, I did not have a place to use as a shop. We were living in a rental town house. All the work I did was done on saw horses in the kitchen with hand tools. I had purchased two very nice iron planes to use. But, I did not know how to tune them. I did not know how to use them.

In short, I lacked both skill and knowledge.

You can have something that is very smooth, but it might not be flat. You can have something be flat, but not smooth. You can have something that is flat and smooth, but not square. All three are needed to have a good face.

As a piece of wood comes off the saw, it has rough surfaces. The surfaces are mostly flat and square, but you can’t trust that until it is measured.

A piece of wood can also be cupped. This is when the center is higher than the edges. The board can also be twisted. All of these can be removed with a hand plane.

You start by examining the board and placing the cup up. This creates a stable surface. Looking down the board, you search for any high spots, end to end. These get your attention first.

Using a ‘fore plane, you remove those high spots. You then use a jack plane to make a flat surface that is also smooth.

Now that your board is flat and smooth, you use winding sticks to find any twist in the board. You plane that out.

Finally, you have a good face. Mark it, then move to an edge. Make it flat and smooth. Use a try square or a known good square to make sure your edge is square.

In the end, you will have two faces that are flat, smooth, and square to each other.

Moving on to the other sides becomes much easier.

Planes

I started with two planes from that failed project of years ago. One is a No 5 jack plane and the other is a joiner or try plane, I don’t remember which. I haven’t gotten tot hat stage yet.

What I didn’t have were smoothing or scrub planes.

Via YouTube recommendation, I found one that looked nice on e-bay, was a No 4 smoothing plane, and looked ready to go.

Friday, before I started work on the truck, I stopped in at the second hand store. I found four planes. One without any hardware or iron, one had an asking price of $175, and two that were only $6.

They followed me home.

Yesterday, I had the eBay one arrive. I went to test it, and it wasn’t ready to use.

Taking it apart, I realized the iron needed to be sharpened. About 30 minutes on the diamond plate and the back was mostly flat, again. The chip breaker also had its edge cleaned and straightened.

Then it was time to sharpen the iron. Using a 25° guide, I started working on it.

The bright was at the heel of the bevel. Looking at the bevel more closely, it was more of a half moon shape than flat.

This iron had been badly sharpened many times.

Today, I was able to get my slow speed grinder running with the correct jig for a plane iron. That iron now has a beautiful edge. It needs some hand work, but it is almost ready to go. Testing it shows reasonable shavings, before the hand work.

The first $6 plane needs to have the edge reworked. There is a chip out of it. I’ve not started that process yet. Nor have I looked at the iron of the other thrift shop plane.

Regardless, I will have my smoothing plane and scrub planes in the coming days. Good news for me!

A scrub plane is a smoothing plane with a rounded cutting edge. It is designed to remove bulk material rapidly.

Nguyen v. Bonta, No. 24-2035, Doc. 54 (9th Cir.)

(Feature Image is Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, who argued the case before the Ninth Circuit merits panel)

This was a big case with all the big names involved. We had Chuck Michel and Anna Barvir from Michel & Associates PC. If there is a Second Amendment case happening in California, they are likely to be there. The NRA was there. Erin Murphy, Paul Clement, Matthew Rowen, and Nicholas Gallagher from Clement & Murphy. You should know their names, think Bruen.

Regardless, Raymond is the one that argued and ran this case.

This was a unanimous opinion by all three judges. This is great. It is a win for The People. The 1 gun per 30 days is currently enjoined. The people of The People’s Republic of California have one of the rights the rest of the citizens of these United States enjoy.

Is this judgment going to stand? I do not believe so. The People have had a few wins in the district courts of California, and we have had a few wins with merits panels of the Ninth Circuit. In every case, the Ninth Circuit has then agreed to hear the case en banc and reversed the merits panel.

According to one of the judges that sits on the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit is over 150 to 0 against The People in Second Amendment cases.

History

In 1999, the state of California enacted a one-gun-a-month law. The law banned the purchase of more than one “concealable handgun” per 30-day period. In 2019, the law was extended to “handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part”.

You just have to love that made up term “firearm precursor part”. Does that mean a billet of 6061? Does it mean a raw forging of aluminum? Does it mean an 80% lower? Yeah, when does it stop being a pipe from The Home Depot, and it becomes a firearm precursor part?

The plaintiffs in the district case became Appellees at the circuit level are the good guys. They wanted to buy more than one firearm per month. The case is a facial challenge to the law.

The judges looked at this case “de novo”, or as if it were new. Because the case was a facial challenge, they only considered the text of the statute. It is the burden of the plaintiffs (good guys) to establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid.

The Analysis

The Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. This provision, coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment, “protect[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17; see also District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628–30 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767–68, 791 (2010). The analysis of a Second Amendment challenge is rooted in the constitutional text and in our nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. We first ask whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” covers the regulated conduct at issue. Id. If it does, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Id. That presumption can be overcome only if “‘historical precedent’ from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.” Id. at 27 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 631).
Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 24-2036, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir.)

This is correctly stated and a good summary. It is at this point where most of the rogue, inferior, courts go off the rails.

Next, we consider whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the regulated conduct just identified. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. It is well established that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” U.S. Const. amend. II, protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; see also McDonald, 561 U.S. at 780. This “core Second Amendment right … ‘wouldn’t mean much’ without the ability to acquire arms.” Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 677 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Bruen, 597 U.S. 1). Thus, we have “consistently held that the Second Amendment … ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.’” B&L Prods., Inc. v. Newsom, 104 F.4th 108, 118 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 677), cert. denied — S. Ct. —, 2025 WL 1211774 (2025). While we have not defined “the precise scope” of protected ancillary rights, we have held “that the plain text of the Second Amendment only prohibits meaningful constraints on the right to acquire firearms.” Id. (quoting Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 678) (emphasis added).
id. at 8–9

Teixeira was decided in 2017, against The People. Yet, it is quoted multiple times. Ezell v City of Chicago, in front of the Seventh Circuit court in 2011, was also a loss for The People. Both cases preceded Bruin and as such need to be reanalyzed in light of the Bruen analysis. In other words, they are likely bad law.

They did not cite to Minneapolis Star & Tribune C v. Minnesota. This is because that case is a Supreme Court opinion and was a much stronger indictment for not messing with The People’s rights via restricting ancillary actions. In that case, the state (bad guys) put a tax on the ink purchased by large newspapers.

The phrase “meaningful constraints” is where this opinion starts to go sideways. Because they are quoting case law from before Bruen they are sneaking in “interest balancing”. The state does not get to decide what is or is not a “meaningful constraint.”

They don’t get to because they always extend it to far. Is a $200 tax on a firearm accessory that much of a constraint? Is a requirement for government permission to purchase a firearm accessory? Or to ask for permission to move it across state lines?

According to the federal government, it is not a meaningful constraint. Nor does the state of California think it is a meaningful constraint.

This makes the statement erroneous. This is why I call foul on citing to bad case law to support current cases.

Making a Summary Because I’m tired

California argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to possess multiple firearms, and even if it did, restricting the frequency of firearm purchases is not a meaningful constraint.

This panel swatted that one down. They point out that if the state was right and because things apart from firearms are arms. The state could argue that if a person owned a knife could be banned from purchasing a firearm.

They get the plain text section right.

Unfortunately, only in part. They claim that delays that serve presumptively valid purposes are constitutional but that in this particular case, the law purpose of the delay is the delay.

They found that there is no history or tradition of meter the exercise of a constitutional right.

Of course, the infringers use the “nuanced approach” argument. That phrase now makes me sick. It tells me the bad guys are about to lie through their teeth and expect me to smile.

Here the court reaches the correct conclusion but for the wrong reasons. This can be bad for the Second Amendment rights of the People.

The nuanced approach only applies to things that are not bans. This is a ban, a metering of rights. In Heller, the Supreme Court found that there was no history or tradition to support firearm bans. This means that a one-per-month ban is unconstitutional, period.

The merits panel then spends a half dozen pages of electrons to find other reasons to find no tradition.

Conclusion

It is a win. I’ll take it.

It is not good case law. They did not create a general understanding of “Plain text” and they did not do a correct history and tradition analysis.

This suggests, to me, that this opinion will be cited by the anti-gun people in the future, in negative ways.

Regardless, this opinion will not stand. It will get overturned by the en banc panel. The Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert if they request cert.

Man washing hands, studio shot.

My Part is Done

I’m sure you all are tired of reading about my vehicle troubles. I’m sure this won’t be the last post about it.

Base problem, the truck is 15 years old. It was given a new frame, but it is starting to age out.

Major safety issues:

  • Right front wheel bearing is bad
  • Left front wheel bearing is going bad
  • Right front caliber is likely bad or will go bad when pads are replaced.
  • Left front caliber is likely bad or will go bad when pads are replaced.
  • Front brake pads, both sides, are bad
  • Front rotors, both sides, are bad. Wear pattern shows uneven application of force
  • Right rear hard line to flex line at frame has bad crimp. It will fail soon
  • Multiple other smaller, non-safety issues

The goal was to reduce my costs at the dealer as much as possible. His price on parts is reasonable, he puts a reasonable markup on those parts. He is willing to use customer supplied parts from me. I have told him that he can reject any parts I bring him if they are not up to his expectations.

The total cost of parts, from Rockauto was $514. Of that, only the brake calibers were the right parts. Everything else goes back for store credit, my choice.

Total cost of parts from local shop, over $500. This was ONE wheel bearing, pressed, instead of two, a pair of rotors and new brake pads. Moreover, there is the brake cleaner, brake fluid, two 12 in sections of brake line. I’m glad they know me. I wish they didn’t know me by name when I walk in.

I thought the right front went ok, after I stopped cursing about buying the wrong parts. It is verified that I made the mistake.

I will have my guy inspect my work and fix any errors I made.

The left front did not go as smoothly.

The wheel didn’t want to come off. The use of a long punch and a 5 pound hand sledge and my son’s help got that off.

The process of taking off the caliber is to first take off the flex hose to hard line bracket. This is a 12 MM (head) bolt.

That bolt head is now round and the bolt is still in place. I should have drilled it out with a left-hand drill and then used my other tools to remove it. My vice grips have gone on walk-about, so I couldn’t even use them.

I was able to break the line lose at the caliber and remove the caliber. The rotor gave way after jack bolts and banging.

It was getting late. The calibers did not want to line up. I finally got it installed, and the hard line would not go into place. I left it like that for the night.

Today started with a trip to the parts store for hard-line. Ally strongly suggested that having the part and not needing it was better than needing the part and not having it. Thank you, Ally.

After a bit of cussing, the hard line went into place. It would not hold pressure. It was time to try my hand at bending break line.

The hardest part of me was the fact that I had to stuff 12 inches of hard line where I should have been using a 6-inch length.

Moreover, did you know that the fittings will not slide around curves? They slide freely on the straight part. That was fun, straightening the line enough to get the fitting into place, then bending it back.

This was a painful process. Because there was no flex, I was bending the hardline with a mandrel in place. Think 2 foot long chuck of 1 inch diameter steel bar and a 1.5 inch diameter steel bar, 2 foot long. Yes, they are heavy. They get heavier the longer you have to hold them in place.

It got done. It was tightened to specification, see AVE’s earlier work. “Click”.

No leaks! I’m happy. I spend the time to find the right size for the bleeder valve. Wheel goes back on, the world is good.

It is time to bleed the brakes. The rear brakes go fine. When I go to bleed the right front, there is a puddle of brake fluid. It is leaking.

When I crawl under and review it, it is leaking where the hard line enters the calibers. At that point my daughter arrives home, I catch a ride with her to get another piece of brake line.

This goes a bit better as I could detach the bracket to get things into place.

So, going into the shop, they will replace the bad crimp, replace the left front wheel bearing, not the complete unit. They will check all the bits and pieces.

I did receive a few helpful comments. I do have an air powered impact gun/wrench. It does ok. I need to upgrade it, as it does not produce enough torque.

Because the gun is weak, I normally break the lug nuts loose before I lift the car. This makes it much easier after the car is up.

To access the axle nut, I need to remove the dust cover. To access the dust cover, I have to remove the wheel and rotor. To remove the rotor, I have to remove the caliber. To put the rotor and wheel back on and lower the car is more work than using a pry bar against the lug studs to keep the wheel hub from spinning.

isolated dirty hand of worker after work hard for a long time on white background

50% done is half ass

This is filler as I’ve not looked at the news nor anything else on Friday.

As I’m writing this at 1830 on Friday, my hands are almost as grease covered as the worker’s hands in the image. I’ve been up since 0700 and have been at work on the Truck since 0930.

First stop, the auto supply store for cotter pins, brake cleaner, and brake fluid.

The first wheel comes off just fine.

Then it was time to take of the calibers. That is where I got my first surprise, these are big, and they do not float.

I’m used to calibers that are attached to the knuckle with two 14 mm headed screws. Torque specs are “yep, click”.

These bolts are normally greased and the calibers just float on the pin portion.

Not mine. They are attached with bolts torqued to 91 ft/lbs, and they are stuck. It took nearly 45 minutes to break them free using a 1″ black iron pipe as a cheater. The big issue was that there was not enough room to work the breaker bar with cheater. I got it done.

Once the caliber was off the truck, it was time to attack the rotor.

The rotor refuses to leave the truck. I whaled on it with a 5 pound hand sledge, it did not budge.

Second trip out, I sent my son to get some 6mx1.0 jack bolts. He returns with exactly what I needed. It only took three text messages. “What is grade 8?”, “do you want the type with the hex top?”, and “How long do they need to be.

Guess what? They don’t fit.

It is only then that I remembered that I have a nice thread gage checker. This is a steel cable with most thread sizes you would find in normal stuff. Each “key” (my son’s term for them), has an external threaded section on one side and an internal threaded section on the other.

In other words, you can screw one side into a hole, and you can screw bolts and screws into the other side.

Testing the jack boltholes I find they are 8m1.25 Off my son goes to get them.

With those in hand, the rotor comes off,

It is now time to attack the axle dust cap. This doesn’t want to come off, but a gentle (not really) attack with a cold chisel, and it gives me a gap for a pry bar to pry it off.

This revels the first clean metal I’ve seen, the axel, axel nut, and the lock for the axel nut.

With a bit of help from my son to keep the hub from rotating, I apply 300+ foot pounds with my foot. There is a load SNAP and all the tools let go. The bar being used to stop the hub from turning, the breaker bar, the 36 mm socket all went their directions.

We recovered all the pieces. I inspected the axel for damage, trying to figure out what snapped. The axle nut now spins off with just light finger pressure. Good news.

I then get the first “win” of the day. Driving the axel out of the sandpaper, err, bearing, was easy and just worked the way it was supposed to.

Driving the other side off? Not so much. After way too much effort, some stupids along the way, my son and I were able to drive the bearings off the knuckle.

The day is good!

After all that work, it is time to start reassembling the front right side. I picked up the “hub with pressed bearings” and compared it to the old part.

Not only does it not match the old part, I can’t make it work without someway to cut a spline in the damn thing.

I messed up. I wasn’t paying enough attention when I ordered front-wheel bearing assemblies. Yes, it had the 6 lugs, but it turns out that there was another version of the Tacoma which uses the heavy-duty brakes, calibers and all the rest, but it is RWD only.

I’m almost in tears. My son takes me to the parts store. They have it in stock. $195. Rockauto.com sells a better version for $106. OUCH! This is precisely what I was hoping to avoid.

It is too late to got back, I buy the parts and we go back.

With the correct part in hand, we can install the bearing assembly. I was just a question of tightening each bolt in sequence, the same amount.

I even have the right tools to torque the bolts. I’m a happy creature.

Time to install the new rotor.

This is where I started cussing to myself.

As I was checking out, I had the rotors, pads in the cart. The website suggested that I use a kit because it came with more hardware, and it was cheaper.

I went for it.

And missed that I had returned the 6 lug version and replaced it with a 5 lug version.

After a short crying jag, my son takes me back to the parts store. Yes, they have the parts in stock. 2 rotors and a set of pads. But because they only have premium in stock, $214.

The passenger side is completed. The bearing has been replaced, the rotor has been replaced, pads have been replaced, brake caliber has been replaced.

The only thing remaining is bleeding the brakes.

Starting work on the driver’s side. The damn wheel won’t come off the rotor! This required energetic use of that five pound sledge with a long punch to knock it off the rotor.

Jack bolts and a bit of hammering and the rotor came off. The brake caliber is stuck on and the head of the bolt holding the hard line on the hub side and the flex line on the frame side rounds over. I can’t get it off.

My son bounces on the breaker bar a few times before the bolts finally come loose. We managed to get the correct two bolts out, pay no attention to the extra bolt we took out.

We then got the hub ready for the new rotor. It took 30 minutes to get the rotor and caliber installed. It was then that I noticed that the hard line doesn’t line up. I take the top bolt out of the caliber and attempt to get the hard-line to attach.

That is when I called it. I was afraid I was cross threading the hard line to the caliber.

I’m tired, I’m grumpy, I don’t want to see the crap and noise that the leftist put out today.

I hope you are having a great weekend. I’m out there working on the truck. Only about 4 hours more of work.

Friday feedback banner, a man with a phone writing reviews

Friday Feedback

Netting

2.5 nets completed. The first net will be used to practice repairs because I made a few mistakes. The fix? Cut the bad part out and tie in a new section. Easy.

The second net had no glaring errors. Mostly knots that did not get set perfectly and using a sheet-bend to tie on more line. The correct knot to use is a water knot. It has one section of whipped cord at the top for a handle. Future round nets will have a wooden handle, which I will turn.

The third net is a rectangular net. It is around 4 ft deep and is currently around 3 ft wide. The target size is 4 ft by 8 ft. I’ll turn it into a gill net by adding weights and floats. Then pictures and it will never be used in NH. Gill nets are not allowed in my area.

Django and Bootstrap

Refactoring is fun. Learning new stuff all the time. I am so glad I have an expert to help me with the bootstrap stuff.

Iran

Initially, I was concerned about getting sucked into a war with Iran. I no longer believe that will happen.

There is no need for boots on the ground. We can accomplish all that is needed by putting warheads on foreheads.

And, it looks like Israel will continue to be the point of the spear. Dropping those warheads.

If we do need to send the Boners in to deploy a few GPU-57s, that is still not boots on the ground.

The Market

We received the first part of our inheritance earlier this year. Some money went to fun stuff. Most of it went into the market. All of my kids’ money went into the market.

It turned out that the ‘savings’ account at my local bank was paying 0.01% APR. Not a way to make money.

I’m using one of the automated investment accounts. You tell it what your goals are. It buys the right things. If it decides it is time to get out of that security, it will sell. It will buy when it thinks it needs to.

Since I invested our money, we’ve had a 3.6% return on investment.

Last Thursday, Israel dropped warheads on foreheads. On Friday, the market responded. In the course of a day of trading, we lost about 40% of what we had made.

On Monday, there was a slight recovery.

Tuesday, saw another dip.

Wednesday saw more recovery.

I expect there to be more instability in the market over the coming weeks. War makes investors nervous.

Here’s the thing, I still have the same amount of cash available to me to use instantly.

I can convert the securities into cash and withdraw the money at any time.

Or I can just leave it the F. alone. Which is what I will continue to do.

When the market goes down, that’s when you should buy.

Car Parts are Here!

That cursing you hear is me working on the truck. All the parts arrived safely, yesterday. I have all the tools I need to do the installation.

My only concern will be knocking the wheel bearings off. Hopefully, that will not be too difficult.

I have decided to leave replacing the brake calipers to the shop. It isn’t that I can’t do it, it is that I hate bleeding brakes. This way, I end up with the best of all worlds.

The shop will have to pull the wheel and calipers. Disconnect the calipers and put in the new ones. They then get to bleed the brakes, but they have the brake fluid, they have the vacuum bleeding system. They have the multiple people ready to do the right thing.

This is low cost and sounds like the right path to me.

Question of the week

Which caliber have you taken up, bought gun and ammo and maybe reloading dies, which you later decided was a bad choice, and why?

Which caliber do you want to explore?

For me, the caliber that I have had second thoughts on is 7.62×39. I have one rifle in that caliber. I have limited ammunition in that caliber. And the gun would likely pass for “new” if I tried to sell it.

I’ve been thinking of something like .17HMR or one of the long-range calibers in the 30-06 class.

Ok, maybe something like the Savage Arms Revel Classic in .17HMR

Close up of Wooden Antique Workshop Table and Tools for Woodwork. Creative Space for Fine Art Creator and Sculptor, Witnessing Talent and Inspiration. Old Traditional Wood Carving Tools

What Do I Do First?

Lumber has become expensive. A couple of 4x4s, some 2x4s and a 2×10, and I’m looking at painful amounts of money. Ouch.

Which brings us to working to a goal:

This cabinet will be knocked down and flat packed. We want this for events. All in all, it looks nice and will perform the functions we need.

I started looking at the materials required to make this. The costs for the lumber starts to get a little excessive. Mostly because of some wide boards that are required. In addition, we will be making more than one and some other pieces as well.

Which takes me to wood. Wood is what you find in trees and burn in your wood stove. Lumber is what you build from.

I have a lot of wood outback. I don’t even bother with all the pine that has fallen over the years because it is horrible for heating. And splitting it is painful.

In the best of all worlds, I would have some way to drag the wood out of the lot, load it into a wood mill, and then mill it to size. Base cost, about $3000. And I’m not sure if I can get the wood out. So add another $2k for the ability to move logs.

The next best thing would be to mill in place. This I’m willing to try. It requires a jib for my chainsaw and a willingness to mill. I expect to be able to pull some reasonable 4/4 lumber out this way. Beach, red oak, pine, elm and some other wood.

Ok, that tool comes first. Add a learning curve.

Now that I have that, I need to turn that 4/4 into useful lumber for building. There is nothing in that shelf unit that is beyond my skills. I’ve built furniture in the past. I expect to be able to build this.

Except I don’t have a place to build it. Which leads me to: I need a workbench:

This is an English Joiners workbench. It has a torsion box interior to stabilize the top, The apron is 2×10 to add stability. There is diagonal bracing which is firmly attached to the rear apron and rear legs to stop racking side to side. And cross bracing for the trestles to stop forward and back motion.

It is held together with screws and construction adhesive. This is where I want to end.

For work holding, a wooden leg vise will be available as well as planing stops, hold down holes, Batten stop and a crochet.

All of this will make it easy for me to work on the cabinets that I intend to make.

Except… The front apron needs to be flat and parallel on both major sides. This is no problem. I have the planes to do this. I have the knowledge of how to do it and some of the skills required.

All I need is a workbench with a planing stop.

What I require is a flat surface to use as a pseudo surface plate for woodworking. The only thing that might come close is the floor of my shop. Which is full and where it is not full, it is oily.

The answer is to build a workbench.

The workbench that I would make is a “low Roman workbench”. It would have a laminated top of 2x4s on edge. I don’t need to make the faces of the 2x4s “flat” I just need to make them flat enough for glue up. I can do this without a reference surface.

To make the surface of the low Roman workbench flat, I can just plain it flat. This can be done with the good plains I already have and some winding sticks.

In addition, the low Roman workbench is better suited for sawing.

For now, I’m stuck between making both workbenches or using my plainer to plain the front apron. If I use the plainer, I get to a workbench faster.

Well, my rubber ducks, thank you for that option.

I’ll use machine tools to get my joiners workbench up and running soonest. I might build the low Roman a bit later.

Now to have time and good weather to build this thing. It looks to be a three day build.

Close-up Of An Open Law Book And Wooden Mallet In Courtroom

My Dicta Good, Your Dicta Bad

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amend­ment is not unlimited. … courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever pur­pose.
Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 24-2036, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir.)

This bit of text is quoted in almost every case where the state is defending their blatant infringements.

They still use this citation, even post Bruen. After Bruen, they added a ⁣more nuanced approach.

What these two quotes have in common is that they are “dicta”.

Dicta is short for obiter dictum. It refers to statements made by a judge in a legal opinion which are not essential to the decision of the case.

What is essential is the holding.

Part of the problem is that the superior courts would rather not resolve the same issues over and over again. They want a one and done case.

The core holding in Heller was that the Second Amendment was an individual right. As such, any ban of a class of firearm, defacto or not, was unconstitutional.

That’s it. The entire discussion on dangerous and unusual, in common use for lawful purposes, and “this is how you perform Second Amendment jurisprudence” is dicta.

Because it is “just” dicta, the inferior courts can choose to ignore it. Or pick and choose which parts of dicta they wish to use.

The rogue inferior courts will use the “not unlimited” to search for the boundaries. Then they will find that the particular law is outside the boundaries of the Second Amendment.

The Bruen opinion introduced more dicta. These dicta were directed orders to the inferior courts. No more two-step shuffle. No more means balancing.

The inferior courts were told, clearly, that the process of picking a level of scrutiny, and then applying a balancing procedure was unacceptable.

They were told to first look at the plain text of the Constitution. The very same language the Court has been using for decades, if not centuries. These inferior courts have shown that they are perfectly capable of reading the plain text of every part of the Constitution, except the Second Amendment.

Once the conduct “touches fingers” with the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the state to show that their regulation is a match for this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

In Rahimi, they said that a person can only be temporarily denied their Second Amendment protected rights. The inferior courts then proceeded to decide that a permanent loss of Second Amendment protected rights was Constitutional, when applied to anybody who could have been sentenced to more than a year in jail/prison.

Finally, Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions” add nothing of consequence. Brief for Respondent 23. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 rifles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR-15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too. The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. See supra, at 6. Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.” Tr. of Oral Arg 80; Reply Brief 20. That leaves only the allegation that the manufacturers have not attempted to make guns with non-defaceable serial numbers. See supra, at 6. But the failure to improve gun design in that way (which federal law does not require) cannot in the end show that the manufacturers have “join[ed] both mind and hand” with lawbreakers in the way needed to aid and abet. Direct Sales, 319 U. S., at 713.
id. at 8–9

This is also dicta. This paragraph was written by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor wrote something similar in Rahimi, I believe. Where she also admitted that the AR-15 was in common use for legal purposes.

After S&W v. Mexico was decided, many of the plaintiffs (good guys) filed notices with their respective courts, pointing them to the opinion. The gist of many of these notifications were, “The plain text is implicated. The burden shifts to the government to prove their ban is justified by this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Supreme Court stated that a firearm or class of firearms can only be banned if it is both dangerous and unusual. If a firearm or class of firearm is in common use, it is not unusual and cannot be banned. Justice Kagan said AR-15s are in common use.”

Well, the replies to those filings have started to come in. In a shocking turn of events, the infringers are now arguing that the Justice Kagan quote is “just dicta” and should be discarded. That it is just meaningless noise.

(But please remember that my dicta, “not unlimited”, cannot be discarded. It was put into a Supreme Court opinion.)

Woman in a red costume

The Red Cloak Is Not Cosplay But a Fashion Freudian Slip

The title is from Miguel.

I’ve written about “Black Fatigue”, a physiological condition of being done with “that” shit. It is that entire situation where I have gone from a person who doesn’t see skin color to somebody that treats it as a threat indicator, every time.

I’m old, I’m tired of this game. I’m tired of fighting to be left alone. I don’t like having to tell my wife what path to take to work to avoid the potential riots downtown.

I want to be a quiet man, left alone.

It appears that every week there is another group of cosplayers claiming that it is my belief that they all be put in a subservient position, to fulfill my needs. What utter bullshit.

It is Freudian projection. I don’t know a single conservative woman that would put up with being placed in the position these deranged girls suggest.

They might meekly put on the costume, but if you tried to put any of my women into that costume, you better have a dipstick to check fluid levels because you will have a major leak. My daughters are not going to submit to that shit. My wife is not going to submit to that shit.

You will only find out just how “meek” conservative women are if I’m already dead. At which point I will have my honor guard.

These same girls, playing out their fantasies, will also scream to disarm themselves. Oh, and me as well. If they don’t want to be the sex toys of their fantasies, then they had damn well better be ready and willing to standup to anybody that would attempt to make their fantasies real.

But it isn’t just these girls cosplaying their sick fantasies. It is the entire left-wing of our body politics. The screaming about Trump doing this or that. It is the fantasies they have. Of what they would do.

I’m tired of these mentally ill children trying to use emotional blackmail on me and mine.

Be strapped, keep your head on a swivel, be where they are not.

Your repressed fantasy is showing its hem

Legal Case Analysis

Barnett v. Raoul, 24-3060 7th cir

The state has stepped up and opened their mouth in an Amicus brief in —Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 24-2036, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir.) (not a good cite). The gist of the case is that the state of Illinois had a Bruen tantrum and created a new assault weapon and magazine ban.

Now the United States DoJ is sticking their oar in the water. Ugh.

President Donald J. Trump has instructed his Administration to “protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.” Executive Order No. 14,206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, 90 Fed. Reg. 9503 (Feb. 7, 2025). Attorney General Pamela Bondi has likewise instructed the Department of Justice “to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” Memo. from the U.S. Att’y Gen., Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force (Apr. 8, 2025).

Yeah, I’ll believe that when the cows come home.

The United States has strong interests in ensuring that these questions are correctly resolved; Now, isn’t that weasel words?

that the Second Amendment is not treated as a second-class right; and that law-abiding Americans in this Circuit are not deprived of the full opportunity to enjoy the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

Wait, WHAT?

Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other” constitutional rights. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 70 (2022) (citation omitted).

Yes, the Supreme Court did say, in Heller and Bruen that the Second Amendment isn’t a second class right.

Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called “assault weapons” ban. In doing so, Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008).

Exactly, Illinois passed a “Bruen tantrum bill”. They did not get the message.

…the key question under the Second Amendment’s text is whether the banned semiautomatic firearms are “Arms”

Many of them—including AR-15s—are. The term “Arms,” as used in the Second Amendment, describes the category of weapons that an individual would wear, bear, or carry for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with other people. Heller, 554 U.S. at 581. Thus, the Second Amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Id. at 582. And it protects not “only those arms in existence in the 18th century,” but also “those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid.

Well, Doh, of course AR-15s are “Arms” under the plain text.

This brief focuses on AR-15s, the “paradigmatic example” of the type of firearm banned by the Act. But to be clear, the Act is, in the United States’ view, unconstitutional to the extent it bans the possession of any firearms (not just AR-15s) that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons. For purposes of this amicus brief, however, the United States does not challenge the district court’s findings that certain firearms banned by the Act, such as .50 caliber rifles and pistols, do not fall within that category. Barnett v. Raoul, 756 F. Supp. 3d 564, 628 (S.D. Ill. 2024). But cf. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141, 605 U.S. __, 2025 WL 1583281, at *8 (U.S. June 5, 2025) (“.50 caliber sniper rifles … are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers”).
— Footnote 2

Please note that the quote comes from the S&W v. Mexico was written by Justice Kagan. In other words, we now have two lefty Justices writing things that are pro-Second Amendment.

… Indeed, it is hard to imagine how anyone fairly applying Heller’s definition of “Arms”—instead of redefining it—could conclude otherwise. Cf. Harrel, 144 S. Ct. at 2492-93 (statement of Thomas, J.); Bevis, 85 F.4th at 1206-07 (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Ok, what happened? The DoJ are the bad guys, aren’t they?

For protected “Arms,” a legislature may only pass “such regulations and limitations” as do not “infringe the right secured and the necessary incidents to the exercise of such right.” Andrews, 50 Tenn. at 179. Courts should generally determine the validity of restrictions on (or regulations regarding) the types of “Arms” that a citizen may possess at the second step of Bruen’s analysis, during which courts must consult our Nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation” and determine whether a given restriction or regulation “is consistent with the principles that underpin [that] regulatory tradition.” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 691-92 (2024) (citation omitted).

Exactly, if the plain text of the Second Amendment interacts with the conduct, bearing assault weapons in this case, then the Second Amendment’s protections presumptively apply to that conduct. The state bears the burden of proving a history of historical regulations that are a match.

Furthermore, while many said that Rahimi was bad for The People, it keeps showing up in positive ways in these court cases. Now if the rogue courts would just follow simple instructions.

The DoJ goes on to correctly apply the “in common use” process. The Supreme Court has already done the work of determining what this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations are in reference to firearm bans. They determined that for an arm to be banned, it must be both dangerous and unusual.

If an arm is in common use among The People, it is not unusual and cannot be banned.

This Second Amendment’s militia-related text, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, thus suggests that the government may not prohibit weapons simply because it considers them “militaristic.” The contrary claim that “militaristic” weapons fall outside its scope wrongly requires reading the prefatory clause entirely out of the Second Amendment.

One of the things the DoJ points out, that I had not noticed, is that these rogue, inferior courts, have decided that Heller severed the Second Amendment’s prefactory clause from its operative clause. These rogue courts were then able to argue that if a weapon was militaristic, the operative clause did not protect it.

This is just BS. The Supreme Court actual recognized that the Second Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense, but also collective self-defense.

Applying that principle to the Act, the Second Amendment protects firearm attachments that are useful to the exercise of the right, including magazines, suppressors, and other firearm attachments that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons. As the D.C. Circuit has held, “[a] magazine is necessary to make meaningful an individual’s right to … self-defense.”

My gosh, the DoJ just said that suppressors are “arms” under the Second Amendment and thus fall under the “in common use” shortcut.

Conclusion

The United States of America Department of Justice just filed one of the most powerful motion, supporting the Second Amendment, I’ve ever read. It calls out the rogue inferior courts. It says that rogue inferior courts are wrong in how they are interpreting the Second Amendment.

In general, parties to a case are careful in their wording to not offend the court. This is why you don’t normally read statements in a motion saying the court got it wrong.

This motion did precisely that. It called out the Seventh Circuit court for intentionally reinterpreting the Supreme Court to get their agenda-driven results.