• An interesting thing is happening within the circuit courts, those judges who are tired of seeing the majority rubber stamp any infringement a state wants, are speaking out.

    They are taking their lead from Thomas, Van Dyke and others who have spoken up to shed light on just how badly these rogue judges are behaving.

    This unorthodox procedural posture bears some explanation. After hearing the case in December 2022, the initial panel majority reached a decision and promptly circulated a draft opinion. Yet for more than a year, no dissent was circulated. The panel thus held the proposed opinion in accordance with our custom that majority and dissenting opinions be published together. A year later—as the proposed opinion sat idle—a different panel heard arguments in United States v. Price (No. 22-4609), which also involved interpreting and applying Bruen. The Price panel quickly circulated a unanimous opinion that reached a conclusion at odds with the Bianchi majority’s year-old proposed opinion. Facing two competing proposed published opinions, the Court declined to let the earlier circulated opinion control. Rather, in January 2024, we “invoked the once-extraordinary mechanism of initial-en-banc review.” Mayor of Balt. v. Azar, 799 F. App’x 193, 195–96 (4th Cir. 2020) (Richardson, J., dissenting). I hope that we will not find ourselves in this posture again soon. Cf. United States v. Gibbs, 905 F.3d 768, 770 (4th Cir. 2018) (Wynn, J., voting separately) (suggesting that majority opinions may be issued without awaiting dissenting opinions to prohibit those dissenting opinions from exercising a “pocket veto” to “deny or delay fairness and justice”).
    —No. 114 Dominic Bianchi v. Anthony Brown, No. 21-1255, slip op., n. 2 (4th Cir.) Richardson, dissenting.

    This explains the game. The majority of the Bianchi merits panel found for The People. The minority refused to write his dissent. Because of “traditions”, the merits panel did not issue their opinion, instead waiting for the dissent.

    Meanwhile, the Fourth was waiting for another 2A case to show up. That would be Price.

    The Price panel decided the “plain text” question was worthy of considerable attention. Since Mr. Price was charged with a criminal act, the panel decided he wasn’t a part of The People. To use their words:

    Again, Bruen’s first step requires us to evaluate whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. The Bruen Court asked three questions to resolve this inquiry: (1) whether the petitioners were “part of the people whom the Second Amendment protects”; (2) whether the weapons regulated by the challenged regulation were “in common use” for a lawful purpose, in that case, “self-defense”; and (3) whether the Second Amendment protected the petitioners’ “proposed course of conduct.” Id. at 31–32 (cleaned up).
    —United States v. Price, No. 22-4609, slip op. at 11,12 (4th Cir.)

    Boy is it cleaned up.

    1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) So the fourth is going down the path that the definition of “The People” in the Second Amendment is a subset of The People as used in the rest of the Constitution.

    2) In common use, was not part of “plain text”. It was a reference to Heller‘s work, which states that the state cannot ban weapons in common use.

    This is essential to note and understand. A weapon that is in common use cannot be banned. This does not mean that weapons that are NOT in common use may be banned. If a weapon is not in common use, then the government bears the burden of proving that there are firearms regulation in this Nation’s history which match the modern-day infringement.

    3) “Shall not be infringed?” That appears to be pretty clear-cut.

    There are 84 pages of this twisting of language in Price all to get to the point where they say “The plain text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the proposed conduct.”

    The gist of this argument is the self-centered arrogance of the Fourth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit. When Justice Thomas wrote: Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. …—id. at 10 he did not claim that any of the Circuit Courts got it right, just nearly so.

    Nevertheless, the Fourth circuit believes that Justice Thomas was speaking about them as having been “broadly consistent” with Heller in the past. Since they are the exception, they must have gotten it right the last time. Thus, they are correct in thinking that “plain text” has anything to do with common use.

    In common use is only of use to The People. If an arm is in common use, it cannot be banned.

    In Bianchi, the Fourth issued Price first, used that to justify their “We were broadly consistent before, we still are.”

    So, in the minds of the Fourth circuit court, “plain text” is a sophisticated problem requiring detail examination of the etymological meaning of each word and phrase, ignoring the Heller Court doing exactly that, for them.

            

  • We talk a lot about SHTF and how we’ll bug out or in, what foods we have, how to make fire. All these things are important, definitely. But I want to talk medications.

    There are categories of medications that need attention. First, we have “first aid” meds, things taken to help with an emergent medical situation. Then we have daily meds, things taken to help with physical problems that are long term. After that, we have what I’ll call helper meds, things we take because we can, but that aren’t necessarily on a daily basis.

    When it comes to first aid meds, the most common ones are:

    • pain relievers (ibuprofen, acetaminophen, aspirin, etc.)
    • cough medicines (dextromethorphan, guaifenesin, etc.)
    • antihistamines (benadryl, Allegra, etc.)
    • decongestants (sudafed and the like)
    • tummy upset meds (tums, laxatives, motion sickness meds, and Imodium)

    I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but those are the common ones I can think of. I tend to keep a rotating store of these meds, so that if an emergency were to happen, I could use them sparingly for a long time. I might not be able to take them as often as I currently do, but I’d have them as back up. Because these aren’t meant to be taken all the time, you can live without them. It might be uncomfortable (literally, in the case of the pain meds) but you’d survive.

    (more…)

            

  • Olympic “trans” controversy where we lost. The boxer in question isn’t trans. She might be cheating. But we lost because the facts are not in our favor.

    We had a great opinion from an east coast federal judge. The gist? “I hate Bruen, I’ve worked hard to find something that would allow me to find for the state. I couldn’t. AR-15s in particular can’t be banned. This doesn’t apply to other ‘assault weapons’ nor does it apply to magazine bans.”

    Rahimi is being used by the state as an “everything goes” but the courts aren’t really buying it unless they were already in the anti-gun camp.

    Thanks again for my grammar checkers. I don’t take offense and I will continue to attempt to do better.

            

  • Right now, there are literally hundreds of women on FaceBook and other social media that are telling “all women” that we are being treated like livestock. I can’t make this shit up, folks.

    Yes, absolutely. As a female human being in America, I am currently:

    • being held in a cage
    • restricted from movement
    • bred against my will
    • used in breeding programs
    • abused and neglected
    • being used for someone else’s profit
    • living in windowless sheds
    • being denied normal behaviors
    • being used for meat and milk, and perhaps eggs

    Seriously? What the hell. In what way is any woman in this country being treated like livestock? For fuck’s sake. Yes, I’m ranting.

    I have MAJOR problems with statements like this. So many problems. Let me innumerate them.

    (more…)

            

  • I started caring about computer infrastructure in the early 1980s. We feed our computer via punch cards, 9 track tape, and a few dozen hardwired terminals at 4800 baud.

    We upgraded our network. We got our IBM 3090 on BITNET. I learned more about networking.

    We upgraded to 10base2 when our Sun 360s arrived. More and more of campus had Ethernet.

    When I arrived in Maryland, I was babysitting some Super Computers. There were nearly 1000 computers hooked up to the network. Most of those were running some variation of Unix.

    To keep all of those machines up-to-date took a highly skilled team of system administrators. They handled all the machines on campus except for the Super Computers, which my team took care of.

    If they needed help, the team could call on my Mentor’s team. His team was part of the group of people that defined the Internet. Yes, really.

    That support team spent about 25% of their time caring for around 800 Unix machines. They spent the other 75% trying to care for the Apple’s and Microsoft machines. The workload was getting greater and greater as more and more Microsoft and Apple machines came on campus.

    By the time I left, they had to increase the size of that support team from two skilled workers, to four skilled workers. 2 of them did nothing but Microsoft support.

    The number of Unix boxes increased and still was taking less than 20% of the teams efforts.

    I wish that was still the case.

    (more…)

            

  • https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNgJrsMe/

    I hadn’t heard much about Tim Walz before this, but apparently he’s quite the character. He’s 60, probably to give Harris’s youth a wisdom boost.

    Per the Left:

    •  he’s a veteran, having served in the Army
    • Governor of Minnesota, defeated the Republican nominee
    • codified abortion rights into the State Constitution
    • staunch union supporter
    • free breakfast and lunch for all students
    • made Minnesota a “transgender children’s sanctuary”
    • Mid-western appeal and a “dad vibe”
    • he adores his cat (not sure why this is a pro but a few places mentioned it, so…)
    • he was a teacher and football coach
    • is known as a “good gun owner”
    • he likes Mountain Dew (so does JD Vance, and this is apparently important??)
    • he’s run against Republicans successfully several times now
    • he speaks well about what he has done and what he wants to do
    • David Hogg likes him (the Left considers this a positive)

    Per the Right:

    • has a DUI from 95
    • dealt badly with the George Floyd riots
    • wants to defund the police
    • was draconian during COVID-19
    • apparently he’s given free college and free medical to illegal aliens
    • interfered in a police shooting case
    • after the Parkland massacre, he became vocally anti-gun
    • most of what he’s done and wants to do is skirting unconstitutional
    • David Hogg likes him (the Right considers this a negative)

    Apparently, the Left think that calling the Right “weird” is causing discomfort for conservatives. That’s not what I’ve observed. Most people on the Right seem to be embracing the concept of being the weird ones. I’ve seen some rather fun videos from people on the Right, showing a variety of truly odd ducks from the Left, then saying, “But I’m definitely weird because I like cheese pizza,” and things like that.

    In any case, there you go. Having heard the video above, I have a strong feeling of dislike for Walz. That may change, but I doubt it. But he does feel like he could change the tide slightly. As The Guardian noted, “It’s part of a vibe shift Democrats are feeling since Joe Biden announced he wouldn’t seek re-election. There’s less focus on the dire consequences of electing Trump again – though those consequences are certainly still part of the motivation – and more on detailing what Democrats want to do if they win.” —Guardian

    I think we need to keep a close eye on the guy. Let’s not allow Trump to fall into the “attack mode” he used last time. That was a failing gambit. His current methods, amusing jabs but mostly sticking to talking about policy and what he’s going to do and has done, are working well. I don’t want to see him “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

            
  • No means no meme
    This is what started the argument…

    Last week, a friend of mine who lives in London, England, posted the above image. The friend is someone I’ve known for some 30 years, maybe longer, though we’ve never met face to face. She works as a “lay therapist,” which is someone who tries to help when medical help is lacking due to there being too many mental health emergencies and not enough mental health providers. If you think it’s bad in America, try Britain. Oy. She’s a GOOD person, though she is fully Left. She walks her talk, which is more than I can say about a lot of people. I respect her. But last week, I wanted to beat my head against a wall, I was so frustrated.

    I saw the image, and immediately wrote the following:

    “See… I do have a problem with this. No most definitely means no. Stop means stop. But all the rest of that? I’ve had plenty of times when I said something hurt, and it just meant changing position or whatever. Putting out stuff like this to vulnerable teens and others tends to make them think that whatever they say, it somehow means no. I want people to learn to SAY NO. Stop is okay, because it’s definitive. The rest are mitigating. Don’t mitigate! Say no!!!”

    She then spent a couple of hours telling me all sorts of things that justified the idea that all of the above statements mean no. I am flabbergasted. I could maybe see “stop” as being the same as “no” because it’s a firm and complete statement. But the rest of them? They don’t mean no.

    When I tell my partner, “Wait…” I’m not telling him no. I’m telling him… oh yeah, WAIT. Give me a minute. The word has a meaning, and the meaning is to delay an action. Nothing in there about no.

    When I tell someone that I hurt, it doesn’t mean no. It means that I have a pain, and that pain could be physical, spiritual, emotional, or mental. None of that means no.

    If I tell someone, “Not now,” that’s a very clear message that maybe later we will do whatever. That’s most definitely NOT NO.

    I went on to say:

    “Sorry, this is one of those big bugaboos for me. Mitigating language is so horribly destructive of relationships as a whole. It gets us into really bad places. It’s fine to tell someone you’re hurting; that’s how they learn not to hurt you. But if you say NO, that should be that. Period, end of statement. Think of it as a ‘safeword,’ if you like. Ow is not a safeword but it is an indication that something might need to change. NO is a safeword – all activity stops. There’s no mitigating with ‘no.’ I firmly believe that all this mitigating language has been brought in by people who don’t want to hear or use the word ‘no.’ The problem is, ‘no’ is the correct word to use. And we must teach people how to use it, and to use it when they need.”

    I think I was being pretty clear. She insisted that the meme was clear. I gave clear examples that the meme was not clear. I don’t understand at all.

    I suspect that this is a (very mild) example of the Leftist speech you all sometimes talk about. Words don’t mean what they meant, the meanings change daily, you can never know what something means. That’s just wrong. And this is someone who is perceived as a professional (and IS a professional, as she underwent an awful lot of intensive training for the position, and as near as I can tell, she’s generally very helpful and good at her job), telling broken people how to communicate. How is this helpful? What’s wrong with using the clear language?

    How are young people supposed to go about their lives, when they’re taught that all these things mean no? Especially women! I’m sorry, but women MUST learn how to say no, firmly. Mitigating language is not going to help any woman, ever. The only thing mitigating language is good for, is when you’re letting someone down gently when you’re firing or laying them off, or something of that kind. Or telling them that the dress really does make their ass look big. THOSE are moments when mitigating language is acceptable. But when you’re expecting clear and concise communication, like during a sexual act? My gawd!

    Yes, I’m being all horrified over here. I don’t understand how this is even a discussion, never mind an argument. We’ve been pushing the “no means no” thing for ages, and we don’t need all this mitigating language messing up a lesson that’s already apparently horrendously difficult to learn.

    Good grief.

            

  • There are 15 shooting sports in the current Olympic Games:

    1. 10m Air Rifle Men
    2. 50m Rifle 3 Positions Men
    3. 10m Air Pistol Men
    4. 25m Rapid Fire Pistol Men
    5. Trap Men
    6. Skeet Men
    7. 10m Air Rifle Women
    8. 50m Rifle 3 Positions Women
    9. 10m Air Pistol Women
    10. 25m Pistol Women
    11. Trap Women
    12. Skeet Women
    13. 10m Air Rifle Mixed Team
    14. 10m Air Pistol Mixed Team
    15. Skeet Mixed Team

    The pistol and rifle are .22 Caliber, the trap, and skeet are 12gage. The air pistol and air rifle fire 10 mm projectiles.

    In reading the rules, they talk about how the shooting jackets are padded to reduce recoil.

    How would they deal with the recoil from a 30-06? It boggles the mind.

    The rapid shooting requires 5 rounds on target from low ready in 4, 6 and 8 seconds.

    Jerry’s 6, reload, 6 in 1.9 seconds would likely break their heads. Of course, they are looking for accuracy rather than speed. Jerry puts all of his rounds in the A box, that is different from the ISSF target.

    The 10 Ring is 100 mm in diameter with the inner 10 being 50 MM, the outer ring is 500 mm. They define a miss a bit differently than we would at “9.7”.

    Regardless, there are still real rifles at the Olympics.

            

  • Guest entry by Allyson/Hagar:

    A couple of decades ago, I was volunteering at a pagan festival. Among other things, my then-boyfriend and I were doing some singing and entertaining (he played guitar, and my voice was still not too bad, back then). We were attending the planning meetings, as one does, and offering ideas.

    The organizers made a statement that the festival was going to be vegan. I commented that, while I agreed that provided food (included with the ticket) could be vegan (which can usually be eaten by most people), we knew plenty of meat eaters who were coming. We should each be allowed to bring whatever food we want, and if it contains an allergen, just sit away from people who might be harmed by it. We were voted down, of course. The organizers decreed that no meat or animal products could be brought on site (let’s not talk about the leather in their shoes or anything like that). I was irritated, not because I need to eat meat (I happen to enjoy vegan food at times), but because I didn’t think it was the place of the organizers to be dictating the food choices of others.

    After talking it over with the boyfriend, we decided to perform this particular song, without mentioning it to the organizers.

    We were given thunderous applause when we were done, by every person except the one organizer who’d been behind the food fiasco. Even the resident vegans thought it was hilarious. The organizer just looked grumpy. I felt much better. Heh!

            

  • No, it looks like this: