• What is the judicial branch of the U.S. Government?

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
    —, Constitution art. III (U.S.)

    There is only one court defined in the Constitution, all the others are created by Congress and are inferior to the Supreme Court.

    The Congress can establish courts, which implies that they can delete courts. This has happened in the past, I believe. We have been looking to split the Ninth Circuit into multiple circuits for several years now.

    Neither the Congress nor the President can reduce the salary for Judges. They can only increase their salaries.

    There are two ways to remove a federal judge from inferior court: 1) Impeach them, 2) Find that they are not exhibiting “good behaviour”.

    While the Constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized inferior courts, it doesn’t, explicitly, say what authority over the other two branches it has.

    The President has the power of the veto. He has command of the military and the tools required to fulfill his responsibilities as the head of the executive branch.

    The Congress has the power of the purse and the ability to create laws. They can override a presidential veto.

    Our government was set up to be at odds with itself. To be inefficient in creating laws. No man’s home or wallet is safe when Congress is in session.

    The power of the Court came when they took it in Marbury. They didn’t justify that power grab under the Constitution. They simply declared that it is the job of the courts to say what the law is.

    As part of that task, they are now empowered (authorized) to judge the Constitutionality of any law.

    The Supreme Court has put guard rails on that power. While we heard it in Bruen and in Heller, it is a consistent message, first look at the plain text of the Constitution. If the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of the Constitution, then the burden shifts to the Government to show this Nation’s historical tradition of equivalent regulation.

    Yes, that sort of language is in many Supreme Court opinions, not just Second Amendment Opinions. Which is part of the reason the legal people of the Second Amendment Community get upset with rogue inferior courts.

    The Trump Administration’s Attack on Judges

    Maybe we should say, “rogue, inferior court, judges.” These are judges, sometimes making up an entire court, that seem to feel that they have the power to overturn presidential orders.

    Unfortunately, these judges step outside the guard rails constantly.

    Consider just one question, “Does the President have the Constitutional authority to hire and fire personal within the executive branch?”

    When we look at the plain text of the Constitution, we find that he does have the authority to hire. Sometimes that requires the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Other times it does not.

    With the authority to hire comes the ancillary authority to fire. This is the same as the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” including the right of the press to purchase ink and to be free of targeted taxation.

    Trump 2.0 came into office knowing that he would be subject to lawfare. The left has already played that hand.

    When I read the filings of the state (good guys), it is obvious that they were prepared for these court cases. They have been extraordinarily careful to make sure they follow the court’s orders without letting the court win.

    Battle Is Waged

    There seems to be credible evidence that there are people in congress that are looking to start impeachment proceedings against those judges that they feel are going rogue. Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement that impeachment wasn’t the correct path to follow when a court’s ruling goes against you. Still, the undertones suggest that impeachments are coming.

    Some lawyers are suggesting going after the good behavior aspect. If the judge is not staying within the guard rails created by the Supreme Court, they are not exhibiting good behavior. This means they can be removed. Is there good case law for this? I do not know. I suspect there is not.

    You are welcome to read this article from the University of Notre Dame.

    Regardless, there are judges out there that are seeing that they are getting into the “FO” stage of the equation.

    Enter Judge Jesse M. Furman

    Judge Furman is a member of the Southern District of New York District Court. When Khalil was detained, then transported before being deported, he was the lucky judge to get the case.

    The case is a writ of habeas corpus.

    A writ of habeas corpus orders the custodian of an individual in custody to produce the individual before the court to make an inquiry concerning his or her detention, to appear for prosecution (ad prosequendum) or to appear to testify (ad testificandum). State courts may issue such writs to prisoner custodians to produce federal prisoners.
    — U.S. Marshals Service

    The gist, in this case, is that the lawyers for Khalil want him in S.D.N.Y, and they want the court to have power over him. Currently, the federal government has power over him.

    Unfortunately for Khalil, the state hit hard and fast. They detained Khalil, took him to the ICE Field Office in Manhattan for processing. The ICE Field Office does not have facilities for holding prisoners for more than 12 hours. Since he couldn’t hold him there, so they transferred him.

    He was transferred to the Elizabeth Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey. Normally, this is where he would have been held until deported or released.

    But, the Elizabeth Detention Facility was experiencing and continues to experience a bedbug issue that prevented [them] from accepting detainees as full transfers. In short, he couldn’t stay there.

    This was known before Khalil was detained. They had transport ready and Khalil was on his way to the Louisiana Detention Facility in Jena, Louisiana shortly after he arrived in New Jersey.

    This was happening so rapidly that the Judge is talking about where Khalil was at any particular minute. In some cases, he was removed from jurisdictions only a few minutes before court orders would have stopped the transfer.

    Now Khalil is in Louisiana. The S.D.N.Y. did not have jurisdiction when the case was opened. That would have been in the District of New Jersey. By the time everything was sorted out, he was in the Western District of Louisiana.

    This judge could claim he had jurisdiction and demand the return of Khalil. This would be fought, and is being fought. He is unlikely to win on the merits. It could be years before the Supreme Court makes a final decision. During that time, Khalil would be behind bars.

    If the judge dismissed the case, his earlier TRO would be vacated and Khalil would be deported.

    If the judge transferred the case to the W.D. of Louisiana, it is likely that the courts in that jurisdiction would not be issuing orders overriding the President.

    Here is the thing. The Trump admin is going to put the same motions for dismissal or transfer in front of the judge in New Jersey.

    How does a judge in New York decide that they don’t have jurisdiction because the person wasn’t in the district when the case was filed, believe that the case belongs in a jurisdiction where the complaint was never filed and where the person is currently being detained?

    Bluntly, I think the judge in New York took a look at what was happening and decided, “I don’t want any part of this mess.” Then punted.

            

  • I’ve had a couple of talks with Chris about the magic auto-pen. It has a history dating back almost a century (yes, WAY back in the NINETEENTH CENTURY! gah, I feel old…), and has been used by many Presidents over that time. Feel free to read up on it if you want to learn more about the historic use of it. Right now, it’s in the news because there’s concern that Joe Biden was not in control of the White House auto-pen when “he” signed several legally binding documents. This is a real concern.

    The news, of course, is not reporting that concern as valid. Instead, it’s making noise that the concern Trump and others have is based on the pen itself. Since Trump doesn’t sign anything legally binding with the auto-pen, says the news, he believes it isn’t legal for anyone to use it for anything legally binding. While it is apparently true (per Fox and Karoline Leavitt) that Trump doesn’t use the auto-pen for anything important, it has historically been used for such things. When it’s done correctly, it’s not an issue. The auto-pen was created to make such things possible in a country that’s impossible to traverse in a single day (even now).

    The real concern, though, is not the auto-pen itself. It’s the person behind the auto-pen. For a very long time, the very existence of the auto-pen was kept secret. Imagine enemies (foreign or domestic) getting their hands on such a thing! It’s been kept in secure space for just such reasons. The problem is, we don’t know for certain if Biden was actually cognizant of every use of the auto-pen. If he was, then it’s fine. We can be unhappy he used it to sign pardons and other important things when he could just have signed the paper, but it’s perfectly legal. On the other hand, if he wasn’t aware that his signature was being used, we have a problem. If Jill Biden, for example, “told” someone that Biden had said to use the auto-pen, that would be illegal, and the document so signed might not be legal. If Biden’s son, who apparently spent an awful lot of time in the Oval Office with his dad, were to have used it, that too would be illegal. Any documents signed under the auspices of a person NOT the President of the United States would be questionable at best, and most likely null and void.

    (more…)

            

  • When my guy does something I like, I do cheer. When their guy does something I dislike, I’ll boo.

    But what happens when my guy does something I like, but which I would boo if their guy did?

    I worry about this.

    In addition, I look at how I would react if something my guy is doing today, were to be done by their guy tomorrow. I need to be willing to accept both theirs and mine doing this thing.

    I was extremely upset when Joe Biden’s masters were ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Is my guy ignoring court rulings?

    One of the things to understand is how our Constitutional Republic works. We, The People, have rights. Our state has rights derived from The People of the state.

    The federal government and the state government have power. They have power by existing.

    The federal Constitution grants authority to the federal government to do certain things, and only those things.

    Consider the following, a squad of cops breaks down your door, throws you in irons, transports you to the jail and locks the cage.

    Under our Constitution, the cops only have the authority to do so if they have a warrant. If they don’t have that warrant, they do not have the authority to detain you. Did they have the power to do so? Obviously, they did because they did detain you, and they did throw you in jail.

    The Supreme Court was not granted any authority under our Constitution. Our Constitution established a Supreme Court, but they didn’t explicitly give the Supreme Court any Authority.

    With —, Constitution art. III (U.S.) the Supreme Court took the authority to arbitrate what was and what was not Constitutional.

    We, as a country, have accepted this.

    When we look at the courts, they have significant authority, they do not always have the power to enforce their authority.

    When the judge looks down from his bench and orders a person into jail, it is Law Enforcement that executes that order. In some cases, the court employs those people. In federal court, the enforcement power rests in the executive branch, such as the federal marshals, who report to DoJ.

    So, in the cases I’m looking at, the court has the authority but lacks the power.

    Tren de Aragua(TdA)

    What is due process as it relates to TdA?

    We start with what due process do you have? You are stopped while walking down the street and the cop demands your papers.

    You do not have to produce papers when a cop demands them (IANAL). In some states, you might have to identify yourself, but that does not require you to provide papers.

    If you have followed your state’s laws regarding providing identification, what next?

    Go watch some YouTube videos and reach out to a lawyer in your state. I have nothing to say because I just don’t know.

    As a citizen, you have the right to a jury of your peers. You have the right to due process. You have the right to legal representation.

    They do not have the authority to just disappear you into a cell.

    You will get your day in court. If you are not found guilty, you will be released. It can be expensive, but you don’t get thrown into a cage without due process.

    But what if you are here illegally?

    If you are an illegal alien, then they only need to prove that you are here illegally. Once they prove that, you can be deported.

    The question arises, who do they have to prove legality to? To a judge? To some nameless official? To their drinking buddies? Who?

    In the case of TdA and other gangs, like MS-13, they self identify as belonging to those gangs. As part of those gangs, they are not welcome in the United States. Because they are not wanted, they do not have visa or green cards. Since they are not here legally, they can be deported.

    But what if they do have a visa or green card?

    Simple, those can be revoked. Being a member of such a gang is enough of a reason for the State Department to revoke a visa and/or a green card.

    Once they are deported, it becomes the responsibility of the receiving country to deal with those deported.

    Well, we decided to fly TdA members to El Salvador. There is an interesting law in El Salvador. According to one source, TdA are by definition criminals in El Salvador.

    Under El Salvadorian law, any member of TdA can be arrested and jailed.

    When these deportees arrived in El Salvador, the El Salvadorian officials determined if they were indeed members of TdA.

    Since they were in El Salvador, they are, by definition, criminals. Thus, they can be jailed.

    They were then in processed and get to stay in the comfort of El Salvador super max prison.

    Was due process served? Yes. Could it have been abused? Yes. Will it be abused when the democrats regain power? Yes, it will.

    How do I know that it will be abused by democrats? Because they did so over the last four years.

            

  • Frank Sinatra was upset in Guys and Dolls because Marlon Brando, as Guy Masterson, was the one to sing “Luck, Be a Lady”.

    Marlon was not a singer. He likely sang as badly as I, or worse. The claim was that his version of “Luck, Be a Lady” was made by cutting multiple takes together. Some cuts being only a word or less.

    This was obviously frustrating to Frank, who is a great singer. Frank went on to make the song his own.

    In 1969, Paint Your Wagon was released, starring Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin. Both men sung their songs. They are not great singers. Nevertheless, the results were good.

            

  • I’m at the Fort this weekend (if you’re in the area, come on over and visit!), presenting life in the early spring in a cold environment. I’ll be staying all weekend, with no running water (it’s turned off until all danger of frost is gone) and little electricity (the gift shop has some). I decided that the food I was going to make should reflect the environment I’ll be in, and so these meals are ones that conceivably could have been served at the Fort in the spring of 1750.

    Soup Meagre

    I’ve adapted this from Hannah Glasse’s recipe of 1765. I find it amusing how closely it resembles the Green Soup that I made a couple of weekends ago for a Viking reenactment I did. There’s never much food in the spring, and what you can get your hands on has to “make do” until you can plant and harvest crops. It’s a tough time of year! This is a very plain soup, but with the seasonings, would probably have been quite the treat. Early greens in New England would include ramps, asparagus, watercress, fiddleheads, dandelion greens, and things we consider weeds like stinging nettle, onion grass, and dock.

    Ingredients:

    • 2 tbsp butter
    • 1 onion, finely chopped
    • 2 celery stalks, cut into 1- to 2-inch lengths (“half as long as your finger”)
    • 6-8 oz mixed greens, (spinach, lettuce, arugula, etc), chopped if large
    • 3 tbsp parsley, finely chopped
    • 1 tbsp flour
    • 2 to 4 cups broth
    • 1/2 tsp salt, plus more to taste
    • 1/2 tsp black pepper, plus more to taste
    • 1/4 tsp ground mace and/or nutmeg

    Melt the butter in a large kettle or Dutch oven over medium heat. When the bubbling has subsided, add the onions and cook for about five minutes, until transparent.

    Add the celery, greens, and parsley, stir, and cook over medium heat for about 10 minutes. Sprinkle the flour over the greens and stir to blend. Add the broth, salt, pepper, and mace, and stir well. Simmer the soup over medium-low heat for about 30 minutes.

    Taste and add more salt and pepper, if desired. Serve warm, with bread if you have it.

    Notes from Mistress Allyson: If you want to add a bit of protein to this meal (something that would have been in high demand in the 1750s in spring), try some beans or a bit of salt pork. Beans get added right before simmering. Salt pork should go in with the butter at the beginning.

    (more…)

            

  • Definitions

    When working with git, there are several areas we might be discussing. The most important areas are “working directory”, “staging”, “local repository”, and “remote repository”.

    A repository without a working directory is called a “bare repository”.

    The working directory is a location where your files live, with a reference back to the repository. It is possible to extract the files without keeping a reference to the repository.

    Most working directories, and what we will assume for our discussion, have the bare repository within the .git directory (folder).

    A remote repository is normally a bare repository located somewhere apart from your local working directory. This could be a different directory on the local machine, or it could be located on a remote, network connected system.

    Creating a Local Version of a Remote Repository

    This is what the remote repository looks like. A pretty simple version.

    gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797"

    We don’t copy it, we clone it. The implication is that what we have in the local version is the same as what is in the remote version.

    git clone ssh:git@github.com/author/book.git

    This creates a directory named “book”, it clones/copies the bare repository from GitHub and places it in “book/.git”. It creates a “remote” reference within “book/.git/refs/remotes” named “origin”. With “origin” it creates a copy of all the branches that are in the remote repository, in our example, just “master”

    The clone command then checks out the working directory into “books”. This would be the files “chapOne.md”, “chapTwo.md”, and “chapThree.md”. It creates a file in “books/.git/refs/heads” named master with the commit hash (identifier) of “0ccd79797”.

    This is a copy of refs/remotes/origin/master.

    Our diagram now looks something like:

    %%{ 'gitGraph': {'rotateTag': true}}%%
gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797" tag: "origin/main"

    At this point, you start work on your three files over two commits, your local repository now looks like:

    %%{ 'gitGraph': {'rotateTag': true}}%%
gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797" tag: "origin/main"
   commit id: "7d918ddc0"
   commit id: "f4b0d4086"

    Meanwhile, your editor has fixed some typos and grammar errors and pushed those to the remote repository.

    gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797"
   commit id: "cd6023b24"
   commit id: "ac6d2dd15"

    These two look the same, but notice that the last two commits have different values/hashes. This is because they are different.

    Since you are done with your edit, you attempt to send your changes back to the remote repository named “origin” via a push command. git push origin main This fails because there would be two versions of the repository if you did this, there can be only one.

    To correct this, you first fetch an updated copy of repo.

    gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797"
   branch origin/main
   checkout origin/main
   commit id: "cd6023b24"
   commit id: "ac6d2dd15"
   checkout main
   commit id: "7d918ddc0"
   commit id: "f4b0d4086"

    This is done with git fetch origin This command updates only the bare repo.

    We now need to combine these two branches, this is done with git merge origin/main After which our local repository looks like.

    gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797"
   branch origin/main
   checkout origin/main
   commit id: "cd6023b24"
   commit id: "ac6d2dd15"
   checkout main
   commit id: "7d918ddc0"
   commit id: "f4b0d4086"
   merge origin/main id:"119c29222"

    We then add some more to the story line and make one more commit.

    gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797"
   branch origin/main
   checkout origin/main
   commit id: "cd6023b24"
   commit id: "ac6d2dd15" tag: "origin/main"
   checkout main
   commit id: "7d918ddc0"
   commit id: "f4b0d4086"
   merge origin/main id: "119c29222"
   commit id: "040e63c01"

    We do another fetch, there is nothing to do as nothing else has been added. We then push our commits back to the remote repository. git push origin main

    gitGraph
   commit id: "d6458df1e"
   commit id: "0ccd79797"
   commit id: "cd6023b24"
   commit id: "ac6d2dd15"
   commit id: "7d918ddc0"
   commit id: "f4b0d4086"
   commit id: "119c29222"
   commit id: "040e63c01"

    Because I’m not the program, there might be some small ordering issues in the final commit.

    The point in all of this is that all of this magic happens behind the scenes. The program can do most merges with no assistance from you. In the rare cases where there is a merge conflict, it is relatively easy to manual merge the changes.

    A merge conflict happens when two commits modify the same line of code. In your version, you had “Ciliorys hat” originally. You modified it to be “Billy-Bobs hat” Your editor had changed it to “Cilory’s hat”.

    Now you have two edits to the same line. Git says, “You figure it out.” and shows you the two versions of the line, in context. You can pick one version or the other, or put in an entirely different version.

    You choose the third option and put “Billy-Bob’s hat”. The world is good.

    Conclusion

    git is powerful. This discussion barely touches on the power of git.

    There is an entire process of modifying code by “forking” a repository. When you are finished with your modifications, you can contribute them back to the original repository with a “Pull Request”.

    Git has multiple methods of inserting code review and other tools into the process.

    It is so powerful, It can be used to create a full wiki, on the fly. The raw files are served as wiki pages.

    There is a method of doing a binary subdivision to find bugs that were introduced in the past. There is a method of tracking who introduced an errant line of code.

    There are tools for pulling a commit out of the middle of a branch and applying it to a different branch, without taking the rest of the modifications.

    In general, there only about a dozen commands that a user needs to know to work with git.

    If you would like to work with git, there are communities ready to help you, there are multiple cloud providers that will allow you to host your repo on the web.

            

  • Update

    My introduction to source code control came at University. The name of the program was “update”. It took an “update deck” which described lines to remove, by line number, and lines of code to insert.

    This format allowed us to inspect the code that was actually being changed, as well as the surrounding code. Every line of code I wrote for the Systems Group that was installed went through three levels of code review and QA testing before going live in the system.

    Having those change decks helped in the review process. As a side note, the author’s initials were attached as a note to the right of every line of code we modified. Easy stuff.

    After a change deck was accepted, it became part of the “installed version” of the software.

    One of the powerful features of working with change decks is that two (or more) people could be working on the same piece of code and unless their changes overlapped, they could be applied independently.

    RCS

    When I left University, I started working with the BRL CAD project. This introduced me to the RCS system.

    RCS was something like “update” but not quite. And you didn’t think in terms of “change decks”. That was handled behind the scenes.

    You had a directory (folder) in which you had your code. You also had hidden files that stored the RCS history of the code.

    By default, files were stored read-only. You could read them, you could compile from them, but you could not modify them.

    To modify a file, you needed to first check out the file. When you checked out a file, it was “locked” to you and nobody else was allowed to modify the file.

    You made the changes you wanted to the checked out files, then you tested. When you were happy that your code worked, you checked in the file you had checked out.

    This is great when modifying a single file, but if you are modifying more than one file to accomplish your fix or enhancement, you have to check in each file in a separate operation.

    There was no linkage between the files to indicate that all the changed files needed to be processed as a gestalt.

    When you were ready to make a release, you had to do some magic to mark each file as being part of that particular tag. Then, at a later time, you could check out that entire tree and work on it as if it was the day of the release.

    RCS did magic behind the scenes to figure out the “delta” between the checked out code and the original. This was equivalent to the “update deck” I was used to from University Days.

    To work in a collaborative methodology, you would have a single “working directory” with everybody on the team having read/write privileges to the directory. If you were working across multiple machines, each machine had to use the same shared directory via a network file system. (NFS at the time)

    At one point, I was working on BRL CAD on my home machine. I did not have enough space on the drive to copy the entire RCS tree to my local drive, so I was using NFS over a 28.8k dial-up modem.

    Compile times ran about 3 days. And if anybody changed one of the “big” include files, I would have to start the build over again.

    If you were working on a copy of the source code, you would extract a patch file from RCS to submit back to the master RCS directory.

    It felt easy at the time, but it wasn’t as easy as it seamed. We just didn’t know what we didn’t know.

    CVS

    CVS was the first major paradigm change in source code control for us. The basic use was the same as with RCS, but they had changed the layout.

    You now had an explicit directory, CVS, which contained the history files. When you checked out files, the lock was done in the CVS directory.

    In addition, you could check out the files read-only (no lock) remotely from the CVS directories and then checkout with a lock, edit on the remote system, then check in your changes.

    This was a game changer. We no longer required a network file systems.

    Unfortunately, we had some of the same issues as we had with RCS. The main one being that only one person could check out/lock a file at a time. With team members working nearly 24 hours per day, it was a pain when the morning dude wasn’t available at 2237 to release a lock.

    SVN

    SVN solved most of the known problems with CVS. It had the concept of a remote repository, it allowed multiple people to work on the same file at the same time. It had better branch and tag capabilities.

    All in all, it was a vast improvement.

    The two primary weaknesses were no gestalt for files and very slow check out of branches and tags away from the main trunk.

    I remember using SVN. I had to use it just a couple of weeks ago. I don’t think I ever fell in love with it. It was a step-wise improvement over CSV.

    git

    Git is my favorite source control system. I understand that there is another SCS, but I can recall its name at this point. I’ve not used it.

    Git changed the paradigm we use for changing the repository. Whereas all the previously discussed SCS’s work on a file by file basis, git works on a “commit” basis.

    Even if you are working in a collaborative environment, you work on your personal repository (repo). We will get to collaborative environments shortly.

    In the simplest form, you create a “working directory” which you populate with your code. That could be a book, a program, an application, or a web page. It doesn’t matter. Git doesn’t care what the files contain, only that they be text files.

    Git can work with binary files, but that is not our focus.

    Once you have your initial contents, you create your repo with git init. With this magic command, git creates all the required files to track the history of your project.

    Let’s say you are working on a book. You have placed each chapter of the book in a separate file. One of your characters is named Cillary Hlinton. Your editor tells you that the name is just too close to a real person, and he would rather not be sued. He asks you to change the character’s name.

    Under update, RCS, CVS and SVN, you would check out individual files, change the name to “Billy Boy” and then check in your changes. When you have made all the changes, you are happy.

    The issue is that there Chapter One is on revision 44, Chapter Two is on revision 37, and Chapter Three is on revision 48. How do you figure out the revision from just before you made the changes?

    With git, you do not check out files and lock them. Instead, all files are ready for you to modify. You just edit the files and change the name.

    Now you have chapters one, two, and three that have been modified. You group them into a single commit by adding them to the staging area. git add chap1.md chap2.md chap3.md

    You can do this on one git add or multiples, in one session or multiple sessions. At some point you will be satisfied with your collection of changed files.

    At that point, you commit the changes. You will be required to supply a message.

    Each of the following circles represents a commit.

    Before Name change

    After the name change

    If we want to see the version before the name change, we can check out commit 4. When we do, all the files are changed back to the version before adding your name changes.

    This makes it easy to find one particular point where the state of the book is one way and in the next commit, all the changes have taken place across the entire book.

    The other major improvement that git brought was fast branches.

    Branches

    Here we see two branches added to the repository. The first “HEAD” is a special branch. It represents the commit associated with the working directory. It is manipulated implicitly instead of explicitly.

    “master” is the default branch until “rrracist” was applied, so some repos now use “main” instead of “master” branch.

    This ability to create branches rapidly allows us to make and destroy branches at will.

    We are going to create a new branch, “editor” for our editor to work on. Meanwhile, you are continuing work on chapter four.

    Editor and Master branches

    And here is where git shows another of its powers, the merge. With the ‘master’ branch checked out, we merge the editor branch, fixing all the little grammar and spelling errors. git checkout master; git merge master

    After Merge

    With this merge completed, the master branch contains all the work done in the editor branch, but the editor branch does not have any of the new work done on master. To synchronize the editor branch with the master branch we do git checkout editor; git merge master.

    After merging master into editor branches

    If there is no more editing to be done, it is acceptable to delete the editor branch. No code will be lost.

    Because the ability to branch and merge is so quick and powerful, it is normal procedure to start a new branch for each issue being addressed in a project. When the issue is resolved, the new code is merged into master or discarded.

    Remote Repositories

    Is a tale for another time.

    Conclusion

    If you can use a source code control system to track your work and changes, do so. It makes life so much easier in the long term.

            
    1. It shall be unlawful for any person-
      1. who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
      2. who is a fugitive from justice;
      3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §802));
      4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
      5. who, being an alien-
        1. is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
        2. (except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
      6. who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
      7. who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
      8. who is subject to a court order that-
        1. was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
        2. restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person 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
          1. includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
          2. 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; or
      9. who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

      to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
      — 18 U.S.C. §922(g) 2025-03-14

    This is the current version of section §922(g). The word “felon” does not appear. All definitions are included within the list.

    As you read on, notice that we have gone from actually crossing state lines to “affecting commerce”. This is a huge power grab by the federal government. The Constitution authorizes them to regulate interstate commerce.

    The power grab is that they now claim the can regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce.
    This is not how it started.

    1. The term ‘indictment’ includes an indictment or an information in any court under which a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may be prosecuted

    — §921 in 1968

    1. It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell or deliver—
      1. any firearm to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age, if the firearm is other than a shotgun or rifle.
      2. any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, or in the locality in which such person resides unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such ordinance.
      3. any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located; except that this paragraph shall not apply in the case of a shotgun or rifle.
      4. to any person any destructive device, machine gun (as defined in section 5848 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, unless he has in his possession a sworn statement executed by the principal law enforcement officer of the locality wherein the purchaser or person to whom it is otherwise disposed of resides, attesting that there is no provision of law, regulation, or ordinance which would be violated by such person’s receipt or possession thereof, and that he is satisfied that it is intended by such person for lawful purposes; and such sworn statement shall be retained by the licensee as a part of the records required to be kept under the provisions of this chapter.
      5. any firearm to any person unless the licensee notes in his records required to be kept pursuant to section 923 of this chapter, the name, age, and place of residence of such person if the person is an individual, or the identity and principal and local places of business of such person if the person is a corporation or other business entity.

    — §922 as of 1968

    This does not seem to include as much as the current law does.

    In October 1968, the law changed

    1. The term ‘crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year’ shall not include (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices as the Secretary may by regulation designate, or (B) any State offense (other than one involving a firearm or explosive) classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

    — §921 — October 1968

    Here we see that they have explicitly excluded misdemeanors with possible imprisonment of less than two years. The old version was greater than one year.

    1. It shall be unlawful for any person—
      1. who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
      2. who is a fugitive from justice;
      3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201 (v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or
      4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

      to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce.

    2. It shall be unlawful for any person—
      1. who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
      2. who is a fugitive from justice
      3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201 (v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or
      4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to any mental institution;

      to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

    — §922 ­­— October 1968

    Read that last line carefully. In November 1968, a person who was a “prohibited person” could no receive any firearm or ammunition which had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. They could still keep and bear arms. They could not buy or be given guns that crossed state lines.

    This means that it was perfectly legal for a prohibited person to keep all the firearms they owned before becoming prohibited and they could manufacture firearms for their use. All legal.

    It also meant, that if they were to buy direct from a manufacturer, that would be legal. For example, if they lived in New Hampshire, they could go to the Sig Store and purchase a gun manufactured by Sig in NH.

    1. It shall be unlawful for any person—
      1. who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
      2. who is a fugitive from justice;
      3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in §102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §802)
      4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
      5. who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
      6. who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or
      7. who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship

      to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce

    — §922 ­­— May 1986

    Section (h) was rewritten to reference section (g) for who was prohibited. We also see that it is no longer receiving a firearm that is a crime, it is in possessing.

    We still see that the limitation is on firearms that cross state lines. We see this in many federal laws. They will reference something crossing state lines being regulated. This is because that is all the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate.

    These changes were part of “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”. I just love it when something that is about protecting my rights adds more limits on rights. Yeah, I know, bad people.

    In 1996, §§ 921-922 were amended to add definitions and text to prohibit who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence..

    In 1998, in an “Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations” bill, they changed the definition of an illegal alien.

    Conclusion

    1) reading lawsuits is easy compared to reading “Public Laws”. They write bills like patch files. Instead of showing us the new version with strike through and underline to show removed and new text, they say things like (I) by inserting “transfer of a firearm to or” before “receipt”; and (II) by striking “(g) or (n)” and inserting “(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)”.

    I read that stuff all the time, but I have tools that make it easy to see the changes.

    2) The law expands little by little, infringing more and more. What starts with something that feels reasonable ends with something that is totally unconstitutional.

            

  • I’m watching the snow melt outside. It’s SLOWER than watching paint dry. Ah well. It’ll be gone soon, and then I can get to work on outdoor stuff. For now, it’s time to plan the outdoor garden space, and decide which things are getting direct sowed. In other words, which things go right into the ground (or raised bed/outdoor container/plant tower/etc) versus those that get started indoors because they’re too delicate for the cooler weather?

    The first seeds that I’ll be direct sowing will be radishes, beets, carrots, peas, and spinach. These are all hardy crops, and they like the cold and damp that come along with early spring and late fall. They’re also staples around here. Well, not the beets so much. I like them, but most of the rest of the family doesn’t. That’s fine; more for me.

    You’ll note that the beets and carrots and radishes are all what we call “root crops.” This means the edible part is under the ground. Generally speaking, for early spring crops you want to look for ones that say, “Plant seed outdoors as soon as the soil can be worked.” This means that a late frost in the spring won’t destroy your plants, and that’s a very good thing when you live in the northern part of America, or any part of Canada. Most root crops can be planted early, but always check the seed packets (or online if you don’t have the packets).

    Before you can sow seeds directly into the soil outdoors (regardless of whether it’s in the ground, in a raised bed, or in a container of some kind), you have to prepare the garden bed. This takes several stages, and is best started as soon as you can get into your garden area. I can’t yet, because we still have snow deep enough to cause issues and I’m not shoveling out the garden. You can speed this up by covering your garden beds with black plastic each fall right before the snow flies. This keeps down on weeds, and also allows the beds to warm up earlier. Once your beds are defrosted and workable, you can begin planting. This is one of the main joys of any kind of raised bed.

    (more…)

            

  • Nerd Babble, the good

    git is a source code control system. It is the most powerful or one of the most powerful SCS’s I’ve used.

    Like all powerful things, you can break it in hundreds of different ways.

    One of its most powerful features is the concept of a remote repository. While other SCS were able to have remote repositories, git takes it a step further. A remote repository is just the bare part of a normal git repository.

    This meant that if you had access to a remote server, you could have a remote repository on that server. The issue came when you wanted to restrict what a user could do on that remote server.

    The answer came in the form of small applications that allowed you to configure remote access via a git repo. That access, in turn, allowed users to access other repos. By combining SSH keys with this simple software package, you could have multiple users accessing the remote repositories through a single “user” on the remote server.

    This simple tool grew into a monstrosity called gitlab. If you purchase a GitLab seat, you get all the tools and do not have to worry about the resources used. Unfortunately, this can be expensive if you have more than a few members of on your team.

    There was an option to self-host, but the self-hosted version was missing some very useful features as compared to the paid version. And the thing is a resource hog.

    GitHub went a slightly different route. It offers almost all the features of GitLab, maybe more. It has a free tier. But if you want private repos, again, you have to pay per seat.

    Enter gitea, as they say, “Git, with a cup of tea.” This thing is fast enough in a low resource environment. It has the remote repos. It allows forking and pull requests.

    It has organizations and teams, allow easy control of collaborations. It has everything we need for remote git repos.

    And then the extras. First, it has a good issue tracking system. It is not jira but it is good enough. It has projects with Kanban capabilities. It has a wiki.

    And it looks like all the “extras” are handled as repos. I’m very impressed.

    I feel like we won this round.

    Nerd Babble, the bad

    Computer motherboards are supposed to be standardized. Yes, some manufacturers make custom boards for their custom cases, but in general, standard is better.

    Over the last couple of years, I’ve discovered a small form factor motherboard that is small enough and light enough to attach to the back of a monitor. We have three of these at the house. Thank you to my son for discovering these.

    When looking for NAS enclosures, I discovered 4 bay NAS enclosures that were designed to hold a Mini-ITX motherboard.

    A Mini-ITX motherboard is 170×170 mm.

    This size allows for exactly one expansion slot to the right of the back i/o ports.

    Unfortunately, there is another motherboard that isn’t a Mini-ITX which gets sold as a Mini-ITX. It is 170x190mm. This gives enough space for 2 expansion slots.

    The NAS enclosures only accept the 170×170 motherboards.

    I now have a 170×190 MB that I will have to home.

    Snope and Ocean State Tactile

    My frustration with the Snope case knows no bounds. This case is old.

    It started as a challenge to Kolbe. Kolbe was a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapon ban. It went before the Fourth Circuit court where they assumed that assault weapons were arms under the Second Amendment, and then proceeded to say that they were not protected arms because of “interest balancing”.

    This was appealed and cert was denied.

    A few years later, Bianchi v. Frosh was started. This was a challenge to Kolbe. The district court followed the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Kolbe and found for the state. The case was appealed. The three judge merits panel found for the state because they could not override an enbanc panel. A motion was made to have the case heard enbanc.

    Regardless, the Fourth found for the state and Bianchi filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

    Somewhere around that time, Frosh was replaced with Brown. Thus, the case became known as Bianchi v. Brown.

    The Supreme Court sat on the case until after Bruen.

    After Bruen the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s finding, and remanded the case back down for a do-over. This is a GVR.

    The Fourth Circuit then had the case briefed in light of Bruen and then heard oral arguments before a three judge merits panel. They were the first circuit to hear a Second Amendment case after Bruen.

    The merits panel split 2-1 in favor of Bianchi. The sore loser refused to write and submit his dissent on the case. This kept the case in limbo for almost a year. At the end of the year, it looked like the merits panel was going to publish their pro-Second Amendment opinion without the dissent.

    At which point the Fourth Circuit decided to take the case enbanc. They required the parties to submit another set of briefs. They then held oral arguments again.

    Around this time, Mr. Bianchi left the state of Maryland. This would have mooted the case, but David Snope was also a plaintiff and thus the case was renamed Snope v. Brown. The Fourth circuit then found for the state, again.

    This case is now before the Supreme Court seeking certiorari, again.

    The court has discussed this case in conference six times. It was distributed for conference seven times, with the first conference being rescheduled.

    Which takes us to Ocean State Tactical. This is a magazine ban out of Rhode Island. It is in the same posture as Snope

    And now we have Antonyuk v. James. This is a sensitive places case. This case has been to the Supreme Court multiple times. Has been GVRed once. It was denied certiorari once, but with a statement by Thomas telling the inferior courts to do it right.

    With all three of these cases before the Supreme Court, seeking certiorari, we might get a trifecta. Here’s hoping.

    The Continuing Lawfare against Trump

    It is difficult to express just how fast these cases are moving. It is my opinion that the people engaging in lawfare had an expectation of stopping this administration dead in its tracks.

    Even when the administration appears to have lost, they are winning. The only case that I’ve noticed that is moving at “regular” speeds is the DoJ v. State of New York. Note, that is not the actual case name.

    We’ve had cases move from district court through the circuit courts to the Supreme Court and back down in a weeks time.

    In the case of Mahmoud, the administration moved so fast that the lawyers filed in the wrong court. Now they are arguing that it was the right court because at that instant of time, M.K. was in a particular location. This does not seem to be the case.

    The left is claiming that Trump is being forced to pay $2 billion dollars. He’s not. The new order says that they have to pay what is actually owed. Not “all billed”. This is another win. That judge was slapped down hard.

    Question of the Week

    Which of the lawfare cases is most concerning to you?