We exist within the framework of our knowledge base, and this colors how we think of our world.

When I look at a machine and find that all the screws are machine screws and that no screws are “hidden,” this tells me that the item is designed to be taken apart.

This was never clearer to me than when I took apart the automatic down feed of my Bridgeport Mill. I had put it off for months because I feared what I would find inside.

There was a logical sequence to follow, when the control came out of its mounting, it was easy to see how it could be taken apart further.

I did take it apart, I was able to repair it with a little light cleaning. There was only one way for it to go back together, and it all just worked.

My wife can’t tell the difference between a well-built machine and a disposable machine. I had to drive her car the other day. It was making a thumping sound as it went over rough bumps. I told her that the bushings were likely bad, and it needed to be repaired before our trip.

She had not heard the sounds, didn’t recognize them. She did not have the world view to understand what she was hearing/observing.

Our skills and knowledge base modifies what we observe.

One of the justices, in oral arguments, asked something about “800 rounds/second”. We know this is ridiculous, but that’s only because we have that knowledge base.

(for those of you that don’t know, normally we express rate of fire in rounds/minute. The M-16 has a rate of fire of around 600 rounds/minute. The Justice’s 800/s is only 80 times faster than the M-16 actually fires)

There is such a thing as “judicial notice.” It only works when something is known by the court. When it is a single judge, then it is simple, they either know or they don’t know.

When it is a panel, some justices might know and others might not know. If a judge wants everybody on the panel to know a fact, they need to tease it out of the attorneys.

In 1992, the Supreme court heard [xCite item=”RJUFM8B4″ pos=0]. The state was attacking Thompson/Center Arms, Co. of selling short barreled rifles.

Thompson made a single-shot pistol called the “Contender”. The frame/receiver could have different barrels attached to it. Thus, you could buy a single pistol and have it in .22LR, .38 SPL, or almost anything else, just by changing the barrel.

Thompson then sold a different package. This consisted of a 21in barrel and a shoulder stock. The stock and barrel could be attached to the Contender frame/receiver, making a single shot carbine.

The state claimed, if the pistol and conversion package were sold to the same person at the same time, that Thompson was selling an SBR. Sounds like the Ghost Gun non-issue the ATF is doing now.

The Supreme Court held that Thompson had not made a firearm; therefore it wasn’t an NFA item. It was the act of putting the stock on the receiver with a short barrel that made an NFA item, not just having the pieces.

It reminds me a little of the ATF claiming that if you had any of the 6 magic M-16 fire control group parts, and you possessed an AR-15, there was constructive intent to have a machine gun, and you were in violation of the NFA.

So what is this all about?

The question came from Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was well versed in firearms. He was a shooter. He darn well knew what a “rim fire cartridge” was.

What he wanted, was for the attorney to put it in the record.

The Win?

On March 5, 2024, the Fourth Circuit court issued an order.

The Bruen Court stated, Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. [xCite item=”75DAVPP7″ pos=3]

The summary and two other places the Bruen court said this. It is absolutely clear that the first step is to determine if the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct, that the conduct is protected, unless the state can show a history and tradition.

The burden to prove history and tradition rests squarely on the state. Proving the conduct is covered under the plain text of the Second Amendment is the burden of the plaintiffs (good guys).

So why is the court asking about “common use”. The reason is that the state wants to shift as much of the burden as possible onto the plaintiffs. It is that simple.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it talk about “in common use”. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Is it an arm? All firearms are arms. The M-16, AR-15, SKS, and Colt SAA are all “arms”. If I want to keep them, that is conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs do not have to prove it is a protected arm. The state must prove that it is NOT protected.

But the state has a nearly impossible task, I hope it is actually impossible, in arms ban cases. In 2008, the Heller court did the analysis of history and tradition and found that there are NO regulations from the correct era that banned arms in common use.

The only bans the Heller court conceded might exist are bans on arms that are unusual and dangerous. And when they talk about “dangerous” they mean significantly more dangerous than just being a firearm.

If the arm is “in common use”, then it is not unusual. If it is not unusual, then it is not “dangerous and unusual”. If it is not dangerous, or it is not unusual, then it cannot be banned.

The “in common use” argument is a rebuttal to the state saying they have found history and tradition to ban arms.

The state will have a difficult time arguing that “in common use” is part of the plaintiff’s burden. The plaintiffs will have another opportunity to knock these silly state arguments down.

TL;DR: Talking about saying goodbye to my parents. This is train of thought babbling.
(2500 words)
Read More

Mom was never a quiet woman. She could look at a handsome man and say as much, without offending dad. Years ago, we were able to give her a life-size cardboard cutout of her favorite football star telling kids to drink their milk. She took laughed, and we took photos of her pretending to be there with him.

When one of Kris Kristopherson’s albums came out, she told everybody, “He’s sexy.”

From mom’s playlist.

(Part 1 is under construction).

Last week I was TDY to visit my parents. Mom had been in failing health for several years. She had dementia. I’ve been avoiding talking to her because she had gotten mean in her dementia. She was the most loving of mothers and I needed to remember her that way.

On March 3rd, 2024, she passed. I received the news about 5 minutes before writing this.

I got to say goodbye. I got my pictures. She was pleasant to be around. She didn’t remember me as her child. She didn’t remember having children. She remembered her husband. She trusted him for her memory. She remembered her stories when I told them to her.

Goodbye mom. I love you.

(800 Words)

In May 1939, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in United States v. Miller et al.

The Western District Court of Arkansas had heard the case earlier. The defendant (bad guy, 2A side) was a no-good, evil, bad man. He was a criminal doing criminal things.

The cops had been unable to catch Mr. Miller doing criminal things but knew he liked to travel. They waited until he crossed state lines so that a new federal law could be used.

The National Firearms Act was new and untested.

When they stopped Mr. Miller, they found that he was in possession of a short barreled shotgun and did not have a tax stamp for the shotgun.

At trial, Mr. Miller’s lawyer argued that The National Firearms Act was not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the State. And oh, by the way, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. [xCite item=”NFKTQ67A” pos=0]

The District court found that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. It sustained the demurrer [xCite item=”NFKTQ67A” pos=1] which is to say the district court nullified the NFA.

The Miller Court cited past Supreme Court opinions to say, “This usurping of the state’s police powers doesn’t fly.”

They then went on to evaluate the Second Amendment challenge.

The big takeaway is “judicial notice” and “absence of any evidence”. Courts have evidence presented to them, the jury then decides on facts from that evidence. If it is a bench trial, the judge determines the facts from the evidence presented.

The other way is for the Court to know something that is “common knowledge”. Nobody has to present evidence that water is wet or that fire burns. Nobody has to present evidence that a firearm is an arm.

Those are “facts” that are commonly known, or which are documented in judicial references.

The remark about “firearms being arms” is documented in Heller

Since the Miller Court had no facts that said that short barreled shotguns were useful to the militia/military, they found that they were not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

In other words, the Miller court said that military and military style weapons were protected by the Second Amendment.

The court went on to differentiate the “Militia” from “Troops.” Troops were controlled by the Federal Government in the Armed Forces. Militia was under the control of the state.

The court went on to say that These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. [xCite item=”NFKTQ67A” pos=3] The key here being “physical capable”. There was no requirement to be in an actual functional militia.

The court held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right because the individual was expected to bring their personal weapons to muster.

The Miller Court found that weapons that are exclusively or predominantly useful in military service[xCite item=”UFNPYHPR” p=1182 pos=4] were protected under the Second Amendment. Those that were not useful in military service could be infringed.

The Heller Court was in balance. How the case would be decided was in question. We didn’t know if it would be the death of private firearm ownership or if it would affirm our protected rights.

It is my opinion that the originalists on the court had to negotiate to win over some agenda-driven justices.

For the most part, cases are staying away from the NFA. It could be the third rail that gets a case moved from a win to a case law in favor of gun control. Some current cases are sneaking in little jabs at the NFA. And we see many challenges of the GCA.

Because of this balancing act, Heller explicitly left the NFA untouched. They left the GCA untouched. Those were battles for later.

Those battles are happening now.

Heller affirmed Miller. McDonald affirmed Heller. Bruen affirmed Heller.

These are the stepping stones to our victory.

[xCiteBib]

Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer for the Northern District of Illinois just issued her memorandum opinion and order.

The gist of this is that she has ruled that grants the states motion for summary judgement.

I.e., the state wins.

Because the Seventh Circuit court affirmed that Friedman was still good law, the inferior court, the district court, could then rule for the state based on the Seventh Circuit’s opinion.

The Seventh Circuit says that it never did means-end, therefore its methodology and reasoning is just as good as Bruen.

Since both courts used “text, history, and tradition”, Friedman survives Bruen.

The Seventh Circuit used “two successive” inquires. Not Bruen‘s two-step, nor pre-Bruen means-end, two successive inquires.

The first inquiry is if the weapons regulated by the laws are “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. The second inquiry is if the regulation matches history and tradition.

This is an interesting twist of Bruen. Heller, as affirmed by Bruen says that if the regulated conduct is within the scope of the Second Amendment, the conduct is presumptively protected. This means that the conduct must be keeping or bearing arms and the regulation must infringe or hinder that conduct. This includes ancillary rights.

Just as [xCite item=”VGKA24MW” pos=0] found that taxing ink was a first amendment infringement, so does regulating parts of firearms or ammunition.

So here is the supposed logic of the Seventh Circuit Court. The plain text should not be interpreted as “arms” but of “bearable arms”. “Bearable arms” in turn are weapons in common use for lawful purposes. “Lawful purposes” is the right to individual self-defense” “Individual self-defense” only includes arms that ordinary people would keep at home for the purpose of self-defense, not weapons predominantly useful in military service. “Predominantly useful in military service” means anything that the military uses or is likely to use, or which looks like or might function like a military issue weapon.

Thus, only non-scary weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs (good guys) must prove that the “arm” is not like a military arm.

Is it a firearm? Then it is an arm. Do the plaintiffs wish to keep or bear that arm? Then it is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment, and the burden shifts to the government to prove a history and tradition of regulations that are a close match to the current regulation.

One of the interesting things that comes out of these rogue inferior courts is the claim that using text, history, and tradition as the Supreme Court would cause other gun control legislation to fall. Since that can’t be the intention of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court, in Heller didn’t tear down the GCA of 1968.

Ignoring Heller, where the court found that having other means of self-defense did not allow an infringement of handguns, the Seventh explicitly said that if a subject wanted a 30 round magazine, they could just buy 3 10 round magazines.

The District Court wrote The court follows Seventh Circuit precedent even if it believes those decisions are wrong or mistaken. that might be true, but I do not, for one second, believe that the district court actually cares if the Circuit got it right, as long as she can side with the state.

This order granting a win for the state is a big nothingburger. The District court was not going to issue an opinion that wasn’t appealed. I believe that this case is already on its way to the Supreme Court. One of the cases that is attempting to skip the Circuit courts.

The only thing that might happen is the case is forced through the Seventh Circuit again. Only this time, because this case has a summary judgement which is final, the Seventh cannot vacate and remand unless they find for the plaintiffs.

This judge was a coward. They added nothing. All that happened is that they said, “The boss told me to do it!” and then attempted to wash their hands of repsonsiblity.

It has been a long week for the family. I have not had much time for the blog.

Leave us some feedback in the comments.

I was traveling recently with family when I ran into a couple of issues with my WiFi.

There first was at a Days Inn. Free WiFi which I connected to so I could checkup on things.

I could not login or even see postings on the site.

I then checked a few other sites. All of them found via google search.

GunsSaveLife.com, GunFreeZone.net, Nation Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, and maybe a few others.

All except for Second Amendment Foundation were blocked.

Of course I just setup proxies or a VPN to get connections outside of the playpen they had attempted to lock me into.

It turns out that his is Spectrum’s “content filtering”.

I tested again at a different public WiFi, same results, service also provided by Spectrum.

My opinion is that this is Spectrum’s default.

So when you are wondering why people don’t know history or other opinions, know that the censorship is real.

This is about a week after I received the knife. So still in the early days.

First, notice that I call it a “knife”. That is because it is a knife first, a multi-tool second. This means it can replace my Cold Steel blade.

It is noticeably lighter than the Cold Steel blade. It is also a bit shorter, about a half inch shorter. Which is one of the reasons it is lighter.

The Cold Steel has metal slabs. This makes it stronger? It does make it heavier. The slaps have finger divots, making it easy to grip.

The Select Fire has a metal interior but a plastic exterior. It has good fitment and comfortable ergonomics. No finger grooves or divots but the shape is such that I’m not concerned that it will slip will using it.

I did something unusual and read the directions. It gave the edge bevel. This is helpful for those that sharpen their own knives. The blade arrived sharp. Kershaw offers free sharpening services for their blades.

The edge is not polished nor is it hair whittling sharp. It is a good functional edge.

The pocket clip is my only issue, so far. It is so tight that I can’t get it to clip to my pockets, in all cases.

The other issue is that because of the design, I can not carry it point up. I adjusted my Cold Steel to clip point up. This means that as the knife comes out of my pocket, it is in the correct orientation to deploy.

The Kershaw can only be carried point down. This is taking a bit of training on my part to learn how to retrieve the knife and deploy it.

So what makes the Select Fire a multi-tool? A bit socket. The shaft is 2 inches long and has a standard hex 1/4in socket at the end. It has a magnet to hold the bits in place.

The socket rod has three positive detents. One is full close, one is ninety degrees and one is 180 degrees. They are strong detents, moving close to “am I going to break something” when I first started working with it.

This give you a good 1/4 driver, which for me is a big plus as it is the standard screw head size for many items, like dishwashers, washing machines, furnaces and others.

There is onboard storage for 4 standard bits. Two per side. The holders are spring loaded to hold them closed. The bit holders are firm but not stupid tight. Bits move in and out with little effort but I don’t think they would “just slide out”.

When the carrier is closed, there is no space for the bits to slide out. They are stopped by the knife body.

It comes with a PH1, PH2, 5mm slot, and 7mm slot bits. I will be replacing the slotted with a gunsmithing version. I will replace the other slot with a Ph0. Ph0 is used for many electronics.

So far, I’m impressed and happy with the knife/tool. I might write a follow up in a 6 plus months, but for now, this is an acceptable replacement knife.

Oh, the one thing I would not use it for is processing game. It has too many places where blood and tissue could get. Since I have knives for game processing, this is not an issue, for me.