Color me surprised, a balanced article from ABC News that actually starts from a pro rights point of view.

It is the most significant case regarding the Second Amendment since the high court affirmed the right to bear arms with its 2010 decision rendering Chicago’s nearly 30-year ban on handgun ownership unconstitutional.

“There’s been a big push to get more Second Amendment cases before the courts because many people believe that the lower courts were not being faithful to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 saying that states, as well as the federal government, were restricted by the Second Amendment,” Seth Chandler, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center who teaches constitutional law, told ABC News. “The Supreme Court for the past 10 years or so has just not placed that hot-button issue on its docket. But now, with this New York State Rifle and Pistol v. Bruen case, they’ve accepted those challenges.”
— Major Second Amendment case awaiting Supreme Court decision

They actually describe Giffords Law Center as “Gun control advocates”. Amazing! I’ve read so few articles where these gun rights infringers are actually identified as advocates for gun control. Normally they are described in terms like “gun violence prevention” and “advocating for gun safety.” I’ll take this as a win.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for
self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.

This is all from the opinion PDF warning written by Thomas.

It is a relatively easy read. Go read it, enjoy the win

Update-1

On page 70 of the opinion is Justice Alito’s concurring opinion.

His opinion directly attacks the use of polls, statistics, number of shootings, mass shootings and everything else that is outside the context of the question.

“Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided…”

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

The dissent is painful to read. It starts, as Alito states, with all sorts of fear mongering. After that Breyer goes off about the court not having any discovery or evidence to support the opinion. Even though in oral arguments New York made statements that directly show that the law is infringing.

What the dissent comes down to, in my opinion, is that the states are more democratic and thus the states should be able to pass what ever laws they want in regards to firearms.

Last, I’ve called my Senator’s offices and left messages with staffers saying this opinion has dropped. That it requires the 2nd be applied with strict scrutiny and thus in order for my Senator to uphold their oath to the Constitution they must vote NO on “The Bipartisan Safer Communities act”. Left the same message with my Representatives office and accidently left it with my state Senator’s office.

I did say I had my congress critters on speed dial. Click on the wrong one when trying to contact my US Representative’s office.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would be issuing opinions on Friday of this week. Normally they issue opinions on Tuesday and Thursday. It is very unusual to have them issue opinions on a Friday.

There are two very big cases we are waiting to hear on. The first is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the opinion that will affect abortion.

The other is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc vs Bruen, the opinion on whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ application for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The media has been pushing shootings into the headlines for months now as this case was discussed within SCOTUS. As seems always to be the case, as soon as good legislation sees the light of day in congress and is making progress we start reading about more and more shootings and suddenly we can’t talk about gun rights because of the blood of the children.

Every single time.

In the house I’ve been talking about how there are more and more articles talking about mass shootings. Mass shootings that disappear just a day or so later. Often when it turns out that it was a protected class shooting at another protected class. In the same way the weekly drum of members of protected classes in Chicago killing each other goes on and on and on without every breaking into the national news cycle.

If these opinions drop on Friday, keep your head on a swivel because it is likely to get very nasty out there. Even in my small town we’ll have a bunch of people on the town square holding up their signs telling me how horrible it is. Just west of here it will be even worse as that town is a liberal cesspool with every left wing activist from a 100 miles protesting.

I don’t expect violence around here, but I’m not going to go anywhere where there might be violence and I will have my head on a swivel. The truck is getting an extra can as well, just in case.

H/T To Divemedic’s blog

Organization is important. I’m disorganized. I can find it in my computer but outside of that I need HELP.

So I try and organize. My shop has pictures on the peg board to remind people (me) where things go when they return it to the peg board and to allow me to know that something is missing. There are things that have their place and they just live there. (3/4 inch combination wrench hangs off a bolt on the side of the mill. Two others are on the peg board.)

I’m sad to report that not all my firearms have their place. They live in safe places but not all of them have a home yet.

My reloading bench is only 3×3 so enough room for reloading but not for mess. I tried to fix this with open top bins that hang off the wall. That worked well when I had the space. Now that rack is in a different room and the new reloading room is still more disorganized.

One thing that did work for some organization was ammo cans. I had the 30Cal can full of 30-06. I had the 30Cal full of 5.56 in clips and, wait, why is that 30cal can full of soldering and electronic shit. Well this can is full of, What? It’s the first aid kit mom packed for me 40+ years ago when I headed off to collage? GRRRR.

Labels! That’s the answer.

The issue is what to label and the size of the cans/boxes. I have a big chest in the reloading room but it is always covered with “stuff” so I can’t get into it.

I finally fell on the answer, sort of by accident. Products from MTM Molded Products.

So here is a review of the products I’ve purchase of theirs.

Ammo Boxes

These are my go to for range ammo. I use different product for long term storage.

They come in different sizes depending on the caliber/size of the round. They they work well for what they are. They are compact. The only real issue is that they are noisy. They rattle in the box which may or may not be an issue for you. They come in different colors, clear like the above or solid. Most of my pistol caliber are solid black.

If you are looking for something to carry reloads to the range, yeah, use these.

They also make them for rifle calibers:

Ammo Cans

These are plastic ammo cans and this is where things start to get interesting. While the external size of these plastic can’s don’t match that of the metal cans, the insides do. These I love.

It is important to note that they make these cans in non standard sizes as well. So you can buy an ammo can that exactly fits their ammo boxes. You can get a can that holds 700 rounds of 45ACP in 7 of there ammo boxes:

I have one of these for 45ACP as the price was right on Amazon.

They have versions that hold magazines instead of their boxes. For example a can that holds 16 1911 sized mags or
another that holds 15 AR-15 mags or another that holds Glock type mags.

And this brings us to the first real issue with MTM products. Their ammo cans are not standardized. So it is possible to buy an ammo can for your 5.56 mags that is just perfect, but while the size of the box looks like their 50cal can, it isn’t. Not a big deal for loose cans, but it becomes more interesting in the tray and crate side of things.

All of these are lighter than their metal counter parts and I’ve not had a single can break on me. Not that I’m particularly hard on my ammo cans. I have no problem using them instead of metal cans. They are sealed with an O-ring which keeps dust, dirt, and water out. It is airtight as well but I wouldn’t expect them, or any ammo can, to handle being submerged at any serious depth.

Ammo Trays

And this is why I decided to use MTM products for organizing my reloading and shooting gear. Their Ammo Trays.

I’ve talked to the people at MTM and from their website they will sell you just the tray part, but they don’t consider that to be a standalone product. They expect to sell the trays with a full compliment of ammo cans.

They have trays for all of their ammo cans but not all of their specialty cans. Which is why I mentioned that the 5.56 magazine can isn’t the same size as the 50 cal can. They look close but they are not the same. It is unclear to me if they would fit. Because of this I’ve not purchased any of the magazine holding ammo cans.

Besides trays for their plastic ammo cans they make trays for metal 30 cal and metal 50 cal cans.

I have multiples of these. I have a 30 cal tray that has my low count rifle ammo. Each can is labeled with the caliber. As an example, I don’t have 1000+ rounds of 303 British. So the 303 british in this can holds all the loaded rounds of 303 in boxes as well as all of my prepared brass and my cleaned but unprocessed 303 brass.

This tray lives near the top of the stack but it is just a few seconds to move a tray and expose the tray I want. At some point I’ll build some shelves for the trays but it isn’t required.

And again, this is where there is a downside. Each tray is dsized for the ammo cans it holds. Thus the 30 cal tray doesn’t stack perfectly on the 50 cal tray even though there are only 3 50 cal cans and 4 30 cal cans. And the trays for metal cans are just a little smaller than the trays for plastic cans so they don’t stack perfectly.

They do stack, but don’t expect to build a stack 10 deep with a small on the bottom and bunch of bigs on top.

These trays are very sturdy. I’ve had no problems shelping them with full cans around the house as I had to move things.

Ammo Crates

But not all things are small enough to fit into an ammo can. Even a big 50 cal can. And MTM came up with an answer for that as well.

Their ammo crates.

They have two lines, the ACR -18 and the ACR -72. The footprint for all the -18s are the same and the footprint for the -72 are the same. So if you want them to stack you just need to pick the right series.

They are big enough to put all the parts of a reloading press in, or a bunch of reloading tools. They have great handles so they are easy to move around and again they stack. The sizes aren’t an exact match to the trays but you can stack them within reason.

If you are interested you can see their entire product line at: MTM Case-Gard but most of their product line is available on Amazon for a bit cheaper.

In a move that surprises nobody, democrat lawmakers in California are unable to understand the difference between margins and gross/net.

If somebody is making a 3% margin this means that for every $100 dollars of purchases they will net $3. The price of a good is normally set by evaluating the cost of the good plus the cost of services and facilities to deliver it.

Again, our nice $100 item. The cost of the good is how much was paid for that item. I.e. the person selling it bought 10 for $500 setting the base cost at $50/unit. There is the cost of shipping. The cost of the store itself (taxes, rent/mortgage). The cost of utilities to keep the lights and heat on. The cost of the communications and marketing. Cost of upkeep on the building and warehouses. Cost of equipment. And then the big one, labor costs.

Labor includes paying for every person that is employed. This includes everybody from the guy that cleans the floor to the CEO trying to keep his business afloat. And that adds up.

So with a 3% margin, the cost of the good is $50 + $47 leaving $3 in profit.

That profit goes to everybody that owns a part of the company and to all improvements to the company, research, development and so forth.

The problem that has happened is that the cost of the good has gone up. It is no longer $50, it is $125. Expenses have gone up, it is no longer $47, it is $80. The total cost of the goods is now $205. The company still wants its 3% so the price of the good is set at $211.

Now we have the math. Our company is sill making a 3% net on that good, but instead of taking in $3 they are taking in $6.

Multiply this by thousands of sales and the net is way up. Even though the margin has stayed the same.

With California drivers paying more than $6 for a gallon of gas and state officials deadlocked for months over how to provide relief, lawmakers in the state Assembly on Monday announced they would investigate oil companies they say are “abusing a historic situation to suck profits from Californians’ wallets.”
—California Democrats to investigate cause of high gas prices

There is no ability to look at root causes. For a democrat every problem is always greed and somebody else. They have no sense of responsibility.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has made ending the rising tide of gun violence a top priority. He describes it as “the civil rights battle of our lifetime” and explains that guns are “destroying the anatomy of our cities and our communities.” The mayor has met with President Joe Biden, appointed a “gun violence prevention czar,” issued a 15-page Blueprint to End Gun Violence and targeted guns on New York City streets.
— NYC Mayor Adams wants to end gun violence — will the Supreme Court prevent him?

And at the same time:

And yet, New York is tied with Massachusetts for the second-lowest rate of gun-related deaths in the nation at 3.7 deaths per 100,000 people, a statistic that includes suicides, homicides, accidents, and people shot to death by police officers. Only Hawaii’s rate is lower.
— Why New York has such a low rate of gun death

As I stated in Polling shows the courts are suppose to make rulings based on the law. The foundation of our laws is our Constitution. If a law violates our Constitution it is unconstitutional making it null and void.

Regardless of that, the media, politicians, and gun rights infringers continue to scream and shout about why their infringements should be allowed.

“It is the will of the people!” Then try to repeal the second amendment and find out that you can’t take a right away from the people.

“It will save the lives of people!” Well that’s well and good, but there are studies that show the opposite of what they are claiming. As well as looking at more than just people killed with firearms.

One of the statistics quotes is how much safer England is with no guns. The quote is number of people killed by guns. Yet ask Madana what happens when the criminal element doesn’t fear the subjects of the crown. Robberies are much more common in England than in the US. Burglaries are taking things from a building, robberies are taking things from people.

While New York might be tied for second lowest gun deaths that doesn’t mean that NYC (1 in 172) is as safe as downtown Henderson, NV (1 in 460). Violent crime isn’t limited to murder by firearm. Violent crime is murder, rape, robbery and assault. Neighborhood Scout

The mayor of NYC thinks that he can pass just one more, or one dozen more, or one hundred more laws that will stop criminals from being criminals.

It just isn’t going to work. Criminals just got to Criminal.

Go call your Senators now!

Read the text for yourself (PDF warning)“Bipartison Safer Communities act”

Quick call to 202-224-3121 is the US Capitol switch board.

Go call your representatives as well.

UPDATE: Reading that bill is difficult and not very helpful. Instead of giving us the final text of the different bills it is full of delete this, insert that language. This is how most bills actual are. In order to know what it actually does you have to see the marked up bill.

I’m leaving this link to a redstate.com article where they talk about what others are saying is in the bill:
BREAKING: Text of Senate Gun Bill Released, and Your Rights Are Dangling by a Thread

In a poll of many eligible voters of these United States it was decided to ratify the Constitution of these United States and to adopt the 10 amendments to the Constitution now known as the Bill of Rights.

Part of the constitution established the form of government, methods of changing the Constitution, electing representatives and three branches of the government.

The Legislative branch, to create laws and pass budgets.
The Executive branch, to fulfil the requirements of the laws of these United States.
The Judicial branch, to pass judgement based on the laws of the land.

These three equal branches of government are created to be in conflict with each other and to be a stop on the power of each other. As President Andrew Jackson famously said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The executive branch could just fail to enforce a judicial decision.

Going back to Schoolhouse Rock we know that Congress, as the legislature creates bills which can become law.

There is really nothing to stop a Senator or Representative from proposing laws that are in conflict with other laws. Sometimes this is on purpose, the law removes or changes some other law for example.

Congress is suppose to represent the will of the people they represent and the states they represent. If they are using polling to determine the will of the people, that’s ok. We actually have official polling every year. We vote for new representatives and other actions where the peoples voice is directly heard.

When Congress passes and the President signs a bill into law it is not actually checked to see if it is legal. When the bill is introduced it is suppose to state the clause under the Constitution that allows for the bill but often that is just noise.

The important point is a law is not required to be Constitutional when passed. When it goes into effect it is assumed to be “legal” until proven otherwise.

Which takes us to the point of this article.

The Supreme Court of these United States is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional. Their job is to examine the laws as written to determine if the law is legal and what limits there might be on the law. Or on whether a law was properly applied or on whether an individuals rights were denied to them.

Thus the following is reasonable rhetoric from a legislator:

A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll out this morning shows that Americans overwhelmingly favor common-sense legislation to address gun violence.

• 88% of Americans support requiring background checks on all gun sales.
  • In 2021, House Democrats passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would require background checks on all gun sales.
  • House Democrats also passed H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, which would close the ‘Charleston Loophole’ and work to prevent firearms from reaching the hands of prohibited gun owners.
• 84% of Americans support preventing sales of all firearms to people reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
  • During the first week of the June work period, the House will take up legislation to enact a national Red Flag law that would prevent those who pose a threat to themselves or others from being able to legally possess a firearm.

Senate Republicans should listen to the American people and work with Democrats on common-sense gun legislation that will take important steps towards ending gun violence in America.
— Polls show Americans want action on common-sense gun legislation

The issue is that so many liberals on the court and in the media are pushing the Supreme court to issue opinions based on polls rather than the law founded on the Constitution.

The court isn’t there to issue opinions based on what the people want.

The court is there to issue opinions based on the law.

If the people want to get a different result, they have to change the law. And that is their problem.

As much as the liberals and gun rights infringers want to ban or restrict firearm ownership they can’t. They intend to write many bills and create many laws that in the end will be found unconstitutional. That won’t stop them. They know it will take years for the courts to strike down whatever they pass today.

They think that they can tax firearm ownership out of existence. They have polls that say they can. But poll taxes are unconstitutional. That likely means that firearm taxes will be found unconstitutional at some point.

They think that they can expand “sensitive locations” to encompass so many places that it is impossible to travel with a firearm. If a bar is defined as a sensitive location as well as a bubble 50 yards in radius that would put most cities and towns off limits. I doubt you could walk through any part of NYC that isn’t within 50 yards (or 100 yards) of a bar.

This is the type of polling that is shouted from the tree tops:

It is also worth noting that gun laws are already more representative of gun lobby clout than the will of the people. Polls show that over 90% of Americans support background checks on all gun sales, 84% want safety education required before first-time gun purchases, and 75% support a 30-day waiting period for gun purchases. Majorities want all private guns registered, a license required for purchases, and assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines banned. Yet none of these stances is the law of the land. Concealed carry laws are also not reflective of public will. About 70% of Americans choose not to own a gun at all, much less carry one in public. Polls show only 12% to 22% support for allowing concealed carry without a permit.
— Alternate Facts, Dueling Realities, and the Second Amendment: On NYSRPA v. Bruen

For a better article on the task of the Supreme Court, go read: Once Again: It Is Not the Supreme Court’s Job to Follow ‘Majority Public Opinion’

When some media person or politician is screaming about some loophole that is allowing bad things to happen, know that what they actually mean is that somebody is following the law and they don’t like the results.

For years we’ve been hearing about the “gun show loophole”. What is the gun show loophole? It means that people that are not FFLs because they don’t aren’t in the business of buying and selling firearms sold firearms at or near a gunshow.

We know that an FFL is required to do all the required background checks, Federal 4473 and whatever the state requires, in order to transfer a firearm. It doesn’t matter if they are doing it at their place of business or at their home or in a convention center, if they are transferring a firearm they have to do the background checks.

Imagine that your father passed and in his will he gave you his collection of firearms. You go to the LGS to sell the entire collection and gives you a lowball offer. Knowing there is a gunshow coming up you determine to sell them yourself. You pay the table feed and show up with your fathers collection of firearms.

At this point you are in an interesting position. Are you in the business of selling firearms? If you are then you need an FFL. If you aren’t then you don’t and can sell to anybody with just a handshake and an exchange of cash. This is how the public thinks gun shows work. The reality is that most gun shows won’t let you do private sales on premises just to remove any chance of a bad sale.

The gun show loophole is a dead issue. The truth has gotten out and people push back so hard that it is only used by the most extreme gun infringers.

The new loophole is the “boyfriend loophole”. This is another one of those made up problems. The issue revolves around removing second amendment rights from people via restraining orders.

Qualifying Restraining Orders: Under 18 U.S.C. 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that: (A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An “intimate partner” of a person is: the spouse or former spouse of the person, the parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person.

— Form 4473 instructions

What this means is that if my neighbor takes gets a restraining order against me, I get to keep my firearms. On the other hand, if my ex-wife of 30 years decides to take out a restraining order I lose my rights to own firearms.

So the loophole in question is the “boyfriend relationship.” If some guy is dating and gets violent. The victim can get a restraining order. That restraining order would not result in the guy losing his firearms.

The concern for the gun rights infringers is the guy using his firearms to harm the victim. So they want to extend the definition of “intimate partner” to include dating. Under this model the guy would lose access to his firearms saving the victim from this guys confiscated firearms.

The issue being argued in the Senate is two fold. The first is what is a dating partner and the second is how does he get his rights back.

Under the guns right infringing model, a guy can take a girl to dinner and a movie. He decides she is to crazy to even dip his wick. She gets upset that he is rejecting her so gets a restraining order. Dude that made the mistake of having dinner with crazy girl now loses his second amendment rights.

The Senate is arguing about how does the guy get his rights back.

Federal law currently only bars people from purchasing a firearm if they are convicted of domestic violence while:

• Living with their partner
• Married to their partner
• Have a child with their partner

Democratic lawmakers have long sought to expand the law to extend that coverage to dating partners, convicted stalkers and any individual under a protective order. But as of now, it doesn’t apply to other types of dating partners, hence the label “boyfriend loophole.”
— Here’s what you need to know about the ‘boyfriend loophole’ holding up gun safety negotiations

To give some perspective to this consider this reality. There are a number of people out there that are prohibited persons because of domestic violence misdemeanors that should not be prohibited. What happened was that they were accused of a bunch of stuff and the lawyers got together and offered a plea deal. If they would plead guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence then all the rest of the charges would be dropped and they would be let of with a slap on the wrist.

In this age of lawfair this is a good deal. Having a lawyer represent you in court is expensive. Since the slap on the wrist is known in advance it is a good deal for the accused. Years later the federal government changes the definition of prohibited person to include domestic violence misdemeanors and suddenly they lose their rights.

Fighting the expansion of who is a prohibited person is an important battle.

One of the difficulties I deal with is not stealing ideas from other bloggers. I’m sure I don’t read all the right blogs but I read a few of them.

Because of this I take a certain joy when I see another blogger that I read and respect commenting or liking an article I wrote.

But it goes in the other direction as well. There are bloggers that read GFZ and then create articles in response to what they read here.

So I got a huge grin on my face this morning when I read Miguel quoted over a Joe Huffman’s Blog

Christian Science Monitor: “Has the gun become a sacred object in America?”
[Via an email from pkoning.

Nice analogy! And he did an awesome job handling the questions of the CSM reporter.—Joe]
— Quote of the day—Miguel Gonzalez

And I agree, Miguel did a great job.