…….

For my wife’s birthday, a few years ago, I got us tickets to see Scott Bradly’s Postmodern Jukebox. It is the only concert that I have ever paid to see.

He started on YouTube making covers of songs in different styles. In this cover of the Friends theme, they provide it in styles from the 1920s through the actual Rembrandt’s sing their version.

But this is the song I wanted to bring to you. It is one of my wife’s favorite songs. We did see Joey in concert.

I once played a Postmodern Jukebox song at the office, my office mates went down the rabbit hole, and we listened to them for a good solid week.

The state can request a warrant upon presenting, to an authorized judicial authority, the proper reasons for a warrant to issue. Once a warrant has been issued, the state can then search in the named locations for the named items, and seize those items.

For example, the state can claim that Bobby-Joe is operating a house of ill repute. They go to the judge and tell the judge, in writing, what evidence they have that Bobby-Joe is operating a house of ill repute. They tell the judge where they want to search, and what they are looking for.

Judge, we believe that Bobby-Joe is operating a house of ill repute because 3 to 5 women go to the house every evening and don’t leave until 0330, see provided photographs. That she is living beyond her documented means, see the two new homes she’s purchased with cash, the fancy cars, and the expensive jewelry.

We want to search the premises to locate her contacts and her books. We believe that these might be electronic. We wish to seize all electronic devices, any business related communications, any and all calendars, and any payment agreements.

The judge signs his X on the dotted line, then goes back to “snuggling” with one of Bobby-Joe’s employees.

The raid happens. During the search, the state finds drugs, firearms, and cash. They seize all the computers, phones, and digital storage devices and all the documents they can find. They seize the drugs and guns and cash.

It is all legal because the Judge signed the warrant.

This only works in a criminal investigation. In a civil investigation, the state is not involved in an authoritative stance. By this, I mean that the state can’t just get warrants issued because there are no crimes being alleged in the civil suit.

I am NOT a lawyer. I’m sure there are exceptions to this. But in general, when the state is a defendant in a civil case, they can just get a warrant to search for information they believe the plaintiffs hold.

Instead, the parties engage in discovery. In my opinion, discovery in Second Amendment Challenges is a waste of time, money, and resources.

If the argument is about the law, then there is no need for experts. The only experts in the courtroom are the lawyers and the judge. The lawyers present their arguments on why the judge should rule in their favor, the judge evaluates the arguments and then issues his judgement regarding the argument.

If the case is an as applied, then evidence might need to be presented.

Let’s consider the situation where a few individuals challenge a law for Second Amendment reasons. The FPC joins the suit as an organizational entity.

The FPC has to prove that the individuals are members of the FPC when the FPC joins the case.

It does not matter if they are life members, if they were gifted the membership, if they joined 20 years ago, 5 years ago, or 5 hours ago. The only thing that matters is that they are members.

The state can subpoena the plaintiffs for information that proves or disproves the membership. If that information has already been presented by the plaintiffs, then they can not.

The problem sometimes arises that the parties want formal proof. That might be a statement taken under oath or a notarized copy of the document proving membership.

When the court grants discovery, this means that the parties can start asking questions of the other party and of third-parties that can reveal evidence.

Which takes us to the real issue with discovery, it can be abused. Occasionally, a case exists purely to be able to do discovery. The plaintiffs don’t think they will win, but they want to be able to have a look behind the veil. The discovery process can be very intrusive.

There have been several cases where information gathered during discovery has “leaked”.

If I were to be subpoenaed regarding an article I had written, they would likely ask for all of my sources. For the most part, that is not an issue. I have the citations. But what if they asked me to produce all my communications with other pro-2A bloggers?

That gets a bit more difficult and it becomes intrusive. They might be claiming that I was coordinating with other bloggers. It certainly looks like that sometimes.

I don’t know how many times I’ve written an article and then the next day watched videos from people I respect covering the same subject and answering the questions I posed in my article. Did they read my article and let their muse loose? Did I read the same primary sources that they did?

There have been many instances where I watched the first part of a video to get the identification of a case, then did my research with the primary sources, wrote my article, then finished watching their video.

Back to subpoenas.

A subpoena may:

That is very broad. They may also command somebody to attend a deposition.

Once a subpoena has been created, it must be served. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person [xCite item=”DRHXFGYN” pos=1]. A subpoena cannot be served directly be either party. It must be a third person.

You might know that a subpoena has been issued against you, you do not have to make yourself available to be officially served. Just because they claim you were served, this is not enough.

When a process server serves a subpoena, they will certify that they have done so. When you send a letter by certified mail, requiring a signature, that might not be proof.

I have signed for certified mail for myself, for my wife, for my business, and for companies I was working for. If I signed for it, that does not mean it got to any third party.

The same is true for FedEx and UPS. Even if it says, “signature required”, that does not mean that it was actually delivered to the named person.

Why? Because it isn’t certified.

The person subpoenaed can object. There is a tight window for this of 14 days, or the time set forth in the subpoena. This means that the person would have to get a lawyer, explain to the lawyer why they don’t want to produce the commanded documents or things, and have it all filed in that time window.

One of the big things in the process is the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.[xCite item=”DRHXFGYN” pos=3] Who gets to determine “significant expense?” If it takes me 30 hours to comply, that’s 30 hours of lost earnings. Is that enough to trigger “significant expense”?

The court may quash or modify a subpoena.

Formatting cleaned.

This is where the subpoena of Professor English is so hinky, why do they need all that information from him? Much of what is requested appears to me to be protected materials. It is not privileged, as that refers to attorney-client privilege.

Since I don’t see any filings from Professor English, the court can’t quash the subpoena for “may quash” reasons.

The other day, I noticed that the State of Washington was trying to serve a subpoena on a William English, PhD.

I have not noticed professor English’s name before, according to the state, his study was cited in Hartford v. Ferguson. Digging deeper, I find:

So he was cited. That shouldn’t be a big deal. It is a published paper. It says what we all know, that there are a boat load of “evil” semi-automatic firearms out there. Well over 24 Million gun owners that posses AR-15s or similar rifles.

What is it that they want to find out from Professor English, then? Do they doubt his numbers?

The state wants to know who funded the study, what questions were asked, who participated in the study, what was done to get the study published, and what was said to a number of Second Amendment lawyers and groups. I recognize Cooper & Kirk, Erin Murphy, Paul Clement, and Clement & Murphy. They are all big name pro-Second Amendment lawyers.

What they are not, is parties to the case. They are not representing any parties in the case.

It looks like the state intends to impugn Professor English’s study based on his sources of funding or the fact that he actually has communicated with some of these great 2A lawyers.

Why? The state claims that they have to ban “assault weapons” because there are just too many of them, and they are so dangerous. At the same time, they want to claim that they are not in common use.

The more likely reason is that the state is attempting to change the methodology laid out in Bruen.

The first question: Does the proposed conduct touch fingers with the Second Amendment? Yes, the plaintiffs wish to purchase semi-automatic rifles and the state says they can’t. The act of purchasing and possessing a rifle is clearly covered under the scope of the Second Amendment.

If the proposed conduce is within the scope of the Second Amendment, the state has the burden to show a history and tradition of regulations that are analogous to the modern infringement, in both how and why.

If the infringement is an arms ban, then the inferior court does not need to do anything more than determine that there are more than 200,000 of the arms in common use to find the infringement is unconstitutional. That is because in Heller the Supreme Court said that it is unconstitutional to ban arms in common use.

To escape the “in common use” test, the state has to prove that there are less than 200,000 “assault weapons” in use in the United States. Where “use” means possessed.

On March 9, 2021, the case was docketed coming out of the District Court, District of Maryland. The district court had dismissed their case because [The] plaintiffs acknowledged in their Complaint that Plaintiffs’ theory of liability is foreclosed by the Forth Circuit’s opinion deciding Kolbe v. Hogan 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), and indeed, Plaintiffs’ suit seems to have no grounding in law. — Bianchi v. Frosh, 1:20-cv-03495, (D. Maryland, Mar 04, 2021) ECF No. 28.

In other words, Bianchi brought the suit explicitly to challenge Kolbe, they knew the case would be dismissed by district court, but it was a hoop they had to jump through.

On September 17, 2021, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the inferior court’s order dismissing the case. This was to be expected: As Plaintiffs concede, however, their argument is squarely foreclosed by this court’s decision in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc). — Dominic Bianchi v. Anthony G. Brown, 21-1255, (4th Cir. Oct 12, 2021) ECF No. 26.

The three judge panel stated that they were not authorized to reconsider an en banc holding. Normally, we would expect a request to hear the case en banc, but the plaintiffs (good guys), know that the Fourth Circuit is going to agree with the state.

They have no interest in getting another negative holding from the Circuit Court, this was just another hoop.

Because, on December 20, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

And then the Supreme Court just sat on the case. It was one of the cases that was stuck pending a grant of certiorari on Second Amendment challenges.

Instead of Bianchi v. Frosh, the Supreme Court heard Bruen and issued their opinion in June.

On June 30, 2022, just days after the Bruen opinion, this case was also granted certiorari.

That same day, the Supreme Court issued their holdings on Bianchi v. Frosh. The judgment of the [Fourth Circuit] court in this cause is vacated with costs, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

The short translation: “You done messed up, fix it right, dumb asses.”

At this point, the Fourth Circuit had a couple of choices, they could do the same thing that the Ninth Circuit court did and kick the can down the road by tossing it in the lap of the district court. This would have actually delayed the case considerably more than Duncan v. Bonta because the case was not actually argued at the district court level.

They did not kick it down the road. Instead, they took it up, they allowed the state and plaintiffs to file briefs in light of Bruen, then heard the case on December 6, 2022.

For an anti-gun circuit court, this case was moving at light speed. Oral arguments were heard on the 6th of December.

And then radio silence. NOTHING. For a year and a month, complete silence out of the Fourth Circuit court.

During that same time, Judge Benitez heard new arguments in Duncan v. Bonta. He let that state throw everything plus the neighbors’ kitchen sink at the case. Then he told the state to whittle it down to only 100 best matching regulations.

He heard other cases and issued his order in Duncan, “It is still unconstitutional, you morons.”

The Ninth Circuit court then went into overdrive to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. They claimed that it was a comeback, took the case en banc, and had oral arguments scheduled.

Today, the Fourth Circuit court caught up with the Ninth. Without issuing their opinion, the three judge panel has had the case moved to an en banc rehearing.

This means that a majority of the judges in regular active service on the Fourth Circuit voted to grant the rehearing.

IANAL, this is actually a good thing for The People.

If the three judge panel had ruled for The People, this would mean that a majority of the court was unwilling to accept The People winning. It will require a massive act of defiance for the inferior Circuit Court to rule that Kolbe is still good law. This means that they have to find a different way of allowing the infringement to continue.

Regardless, this puts it all out in the open. And the case can go to the Supreme Court.

If the three judge panel ruled for the state, this would mean that the majority of the court was for the Constitution and The People. They will then issue a favorable ruling. The state can appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court can simply deny certiorari and The People win, and the Supreme Court has told the rest of the inferior courts that the Second Amendment means what it says.

The other possibility is that someone on the Fourth Circuit doesn’t want this to go around in circles, again. So even though they agree with the opinion that was to issue, they want to put the stamp of the entire en banc panel on the case.

It appears to be unusual for a case to be taken en banc without the opinion of the three judge panel being published, but we saw something similar happen in the Eleventh Circuit court where the three judge panel decided that 18,19, and 20 year-olds are not part of The People.

It feels like I’ve been a bit light on postings this week. On the other hand, I’ve been busy as heck. I guess it balances out.

I’m still doing the ESL classes. At the last company meeting, about 30% of the people taking the classes mentioned that it was very helpful for them.

I also found out that even my half ass work is beyond most peoples expectations. The last company meeting was goal reviews for 2023 and goals for 2024. I was told to have my 5 goals in to the meeting leader by EOD on Monday. I whipped off a 10-slide presentation and handed it to her.

And I was called first, so popped up my slide show in OBS, ran the slides in 5 minutes, which is very fast. My mentor said to plan on 60 seconds per slide. I’ve held to that since he told me. I was running fast this time, so 30 second per slide.

I even mentioned the Casinator as an end from the goal of learning FreeCAD.

If the world treats me well tomorrow, I will have time in the shop to start building. If I get the faceplate, drive pulley, and cutter holder completed, I will actually have something running.

What is a goal for you for 2024? Is it to read a book? Learn a skill, lose weight?

Please let us know in the comments.

I spend far too much time thinking about communication. The words we pick have meaning, connotation, and implicit context.

Consider the following phrases: I did well in my maths. It bit me in the arse. When I was at University.

All three phrases are phrases from the UK. They imply something.

When I say “the state argued …”, I am choosing not to use the word “government”. “The State” has different connotations than “the government”. It helps to communicate.

One of my friends truly believes I spent time with an unnamed three letter agency doing “that sort of work”. I didn’t.

No matter how many times I tell him, “no”, he doesn’t believe me. Why does he believe this? My knowledge about things he knows are not commonly known, and a quiet competence in certain areas, along with a vocabulary taken from spending time around the military messes with his brain.

The only way he can make it all fit is to put me in the box labeled “spook”.

The media knows this, they understand it, better than we do, in general. And they use it to tell a narrative that they want to tell.

NBC did a piece on PregerU. It turned into a hit piece. Dennis and Marissa go through the broadcast and show how words were twisted.

It is a long video, but well worth watching

Regardless of what tools you use to reload, you will end up with some reloaded cartridges. Hopefully, you didn’t make any major mistakes along the way.

It is now time to inspect, test, and store.

For me, I do initial testing of my loads. Generally, that is 5 per test. I change exactly one thing between tests. Once I identify a successful load, I stick with it.

So what are my variables?

The biggest and easiest to change is the charge weight. Again, in general, if you are following a recipe from your reloading bible(s), you will get acceptable results. For each test group, is fired from a firearm I know and understand. The fact that rounds out of the CETME don’t go where I expect nor do they group is not data. Five rounds out of the Remington 700 is meaningful.

Besides group size, I also record velocity.

If I am satisfied, I am likely to stop there. I am more interested in shooting than in reloading.

If I am not satisfied, I will adjust the load.

Because I have that test range close by, I can take my five shots, go and reload another 5 with a different charge, and then try again.

If I need longer ranges, I will load up a sequence of charges. Five rounds with each charge weight, carefully labeled.

The next variable that can be changed is seating depth. Go ask somebody else about how it affects accuracy and speed. I follow the bible’s value, as closely as I can.

Next comes the actual powder. I am more likely to change powder because of availability than because of performance. Every time I use a new powder, I do the same set of tests.

The most important aspect of all of this is to record your observations. If you are not recording your observations, then you are just guessing. And you get to do it all over again the next time.

Next comes bullets. You can try changing the weight, style, or type of bullet you are using. All will change the results you get. Each change of bullet requires working up a load.

For me, I will often work up a load with a cheaper bullet, replace that bullet with a bullet of similar flight characteristics and the same weight. Then my starting point will be the same charge/powder that I used with the cheaper bullet.

It is worthwhile to have worked up loads for different needs. I have loads for 5.56×45 using FMJBT, and name brand hunting bullets. I have .45ACP with coated cast bullets, FMJ bullets, copper plated bullets, and JHP bullets. I’ve stopped buying copper plated and FMJ bullets. I have plenty, when the plated runs out, I do not expect to buy more. When the FMJ runs out, it is unlikely I will buy more.

But what happens when you have worked up all your loads? It is time to make and store your rounds.

However, you store your ammo, you need to be able to identify it easily and rapidly. You should also be able to look up what the recipe you used was.

Bulk Storage

When I purchased my first AR15 style weapon, I purchased 2000 rounds of surplus 5.56×45 ammo to go with it. The ammo came packed in a wooden box. Inside were 100 boxes, each holding 20 rounds. That box, when full, was HEAVY. But it was easy to move, easy to find, easy to open. It was what I needed.

Today I use ammo cans. I have metal cans, but mostly I’ve switched to plastic cans. The plastic might not be as sturdy as the metal cans, but they are more than sturdy enough.

If you don’t really care, then you can store your ammo in an ammo can as is. By that, I mean just loose in the can.

The last time I bought bulk 5.56×45, it came in a mini plastic ammo can. No boxes, nothing but rounds of ammo in a small ammo can.

This does not work for me in the long run. It is too easy to dump out and make a mess, or to lose track of how many rounds remain.

Boxing

That is where Repackbox comes into play. Not only do they organize your ammo into boxes, they do it compactly. A box of .45 ACP is 50 rounds and takes up about 1/3 the space as a box of .45 ACP from Federal. That is because there is no holder.

Each caliber box comes with packing instructions for 30 cal cans and 50 cal cans. Somebody has done the work for you to figure out the most compact way to store your ammo boxes.

Much of my ammo is stored like this. Each box has a label on it telling me the recipe I used for the ammo in the box. That recipe includes bullet type as well.

Stripper Clips

For many of my rifles, they have stripper clips. Some stripper clips are designed to strip directly into the rifle, others strip into a magazine.

My bulk purchase of 30-06 came loose in a 30 cal metal ammo can. Most of that ammo was placed in enblocks, the enblocks were then placed in ammo belts and bandoleers. The remaining loose rounds went into boxes.

The other WWII rifles all have stripper clips loaded for them. The rest went into boxes and from there into ammo cans.

For the 5.56×45 and 7.62×39, those go onto stripper clips. The 5.56×45 on strips then go into cardboard sleeves, and from there into ammo cans. Each ammo sleeve holds 3 stripper clips of 10 rounds each for a total of 30 rounds. Ready to be stripped into magazines.

I don’t have sleeves for the 7.62×39, it is on the list of things I want to get.

Magazines

I don’t know how many magazines you have for your firearms, but I don’t have enough.

Define enough? More than I currently have.

If I have too many magazines, I get more ammo, then I don’t have enough magazines.

Reality check, some firearm magazines are lower cost than others.

For the Glock and the PC-9 I have 10 magazines, I think. They are ready magazines. They are in the carry bag for the PC-9, along with the holster and belt for the Glock. Which reminds me, I need to add a set of load bearing suspenders to that kit bag.

Again, I don’t know how many magazines I have for the 1911s, but not enough. My standard load out is two spare magazines on my weak side, one in the pistol, then extras in the bags.

I need to update my load bearing gear. Each of the AR platforms has its own LBV rig. Each rig carries 6 magazines. Each rig also has an IFAK. I’m going to upgrade that with pistol holsters. For my primaries, that will be 1911 specific holster and magazine pouches. For the other rigs, it will be Glock or HK holsters.

Crates

All the ammo cans that I currently have reside in “crates”. Each crate holds 3 50 cal cans or 4 30 cal cans.

Since the crates stack, there is madness to my method. The bottom rows are 50 cal cans. Each crate is dedicated to a specific caliber or grouping of calibers. Most of it is over flow.

In the top row are ready cans. These are cans that are partially full of boxes of ammo, ready for use. One can per caliber in this row. If I need to, I’ll dig down to the lower tiers to get a full can, then refill the empty can from reloading.

Temporary/Ready Storage

The last storage method is those cute ammo boxes that hold a few rounds for range day. I have a number of MTM Flip-Top boxes. I normally pick up 200 rounds worth of these boxes for range ready rounds. Or for ready storage.

For example, when I take out a trash panda, the rifle gets topped off from one of these plastic boxes. If the box looks to be a little low, it gets more added from the ammo storage.

I also bought a 50 cal can with 7 100 round 45 ACP boxes in it. I.e., a 50 cal can that I can lug to the range, but I only take out 100 rounds at a time. The next time I reload .45 ACP, I’ll top off all the boxes, but it really wasn’t a good purchase. Today I would invest in repackbox and just regular cans.

Long-Term Storage

You need to have ammo that is difficult to get to and even more difficult to find.

If you have ever heard of a place to stash something, it is known to both the good guys and the bad guys.

I remember somebody explaining how if you really wanted to hide something, hide it in a wall. To achieve this, you remove the entire sheet rock panel. You put your stuff in the wall. You then hang new sheetrock, tape it, mud it, prime it, paint the entire room.

If you need access, you will have to destroy the wall to get it out.

Are you thinking of storing it in someplace gross and disgusting? That’s what rookies and cherries are for.

Ground penetrating radar can be used in homes, so can magnetometers.

We’ve talked about stashes in other articles. You can make a stash, or you can just store your ammo in more than one place.

I leave you with this clip from a famous movie. In it, the people have just been driven from their homes. Some have stayed behind, in hiding. The bad guys have already cleared this area multiple times in the past. They knew exactly what they were doing. They know all the hiding places, they know how to search, and they have the time to search.

[videopack id=”93108″]https://GunFreeZone.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/0001-0469.mp4[/videopack]

Here’s a blast from the past! I hope you enjoy it.

Warning, high quality headphones should be used.

At one time, I was a member of the NRA. My mentor gave me that membership. The legislative announcements we received were useful.

We submitted testimony three times, I spoke before the Maryland Senate committee that was looking at infringement bills. Every time, it was the NRA that gave us the heads-up. It was the NRA there, fighting for our rights.

In those committee hearings, there were always a dozen or more anti-gun groups and exactly one pro-Second Amendment group.

We look and see the NRA is missing in the current court battles. They were there. They still are.

Consider the name of this group, “The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association”. You might remember them from such hits as “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York” and “New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, Et Al.”.

Let me quote you a little something from their web page: We are a not-for-profit 501(c)4 organization and the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York..

That’s correct, that was the NRA working for many years to help get our win in Bruen

Today, the NRA is a shell of its former self. I know people who maintain their memberships because they just do. I send my money to other groups, groups who I see in court battles time and time again.

Please pray that the NRA can recover from its nose dive to become a powerhouse in the support of the Second Amendment again.

I am a “hobby” machinist. I’ve read some books, I’ve watched 1000s of YouTube videos. I’ve even been in the shop and made things. But I’m still a hobby grade machinist.

Occasionally, there are things that you just don’t know you don’t know.

The bible for machinists is the Machinery’s Handbook. It contains maths, it contains formulas, it contains specifications, it contains just about any knowledge you might need to machine something.

I’ve looked at the section on bearings, and it didn’t click.

Then one of you sent me some feedback on the Casinator. It was obvious from the outset that they knew what they were talking about. They rattled off specifications and bearing identifiers without issue. I had to spend some time looking things up.

One of the things that we deal with is attaching things to one another. You can glue things together with molten metal, but that has its issues. You can attach things with bolts and other fasteners. You can also shove something into a hole that is too small for it with enough force that it goes in and stays in place.

That last thing is called a “press fit”. Assume you have a 1/4in hole, and you want to press a 1/4in shaft into that hole and have it stick. If the hole is 0.2500 and the shaft is 0.2490, the shaft clears the hole. As long as the shaft doesn’t expand or the hole shrinks from heat, everything is fine.

But we want it to stick. We can either make the hole smaller or the shaft bigger. The Machinery’s Handbook will guide you to the correct values.

Bearings are designed to be held in place. One of the most common methods is a press fit. For the types of bearings I’m using, this means that when the bearing is pressed onto the shaft, it stays. When the bearing is pressed into the faceplate, it stays.

The amount of interference is based on many factors, some of those factors are known only to the manufacturer of the bearings.

Thus, “nominal”. With the R4ZZ bearings I am using, they are nominally 5/8 OD and 1/4 ID.

They are not 0.6250 and 0.2500. The OD is large, and the ID is smaller. The interference fit is built into the bearing design.

My job is to hit the proper sizes when I machine the pockets and shafts. That is to say, my pockets must be 0.6250 within the given tolerances, and the shaft must be 0.250 within the given tolerances.

No maths for me! Just hit my numbers.

Thank you!