• Ok, Ok, I know it’s not there yet. Thank you so much, everybody, for your support.

    Base functionality is here. I’ve done no theming yet. I had all the security plugins up and running before the site opened. I’m working towards getting the rest configured.

    • The site is supposed to have an edit option. I think there is an issue with the ingress configuration which is stopping that.
    • There is no store yet.  There will be soon, donations will be available there and on the sidebar.
    • I’m accepting images for the banner.  I am terrible at that sort of thing.  What I would like is something similar to the current American patriot with mask, tricorn hat, AR-15, defending a vine growing in a desolate location.
    • I need to set up some cross blog feeds.  I am not sure how that works.
    • I will be pulling the PDFs from GFZ and having a PDF here.  I will add my collection of FMs, and firearm blueprints.
    • I will be pulling all of my past postings from GFZ and adding them here.
    • Email is mostly working, except for mine.  *Sigh,* nothing is easy.
    • There is likely to be some sidebar advertisements.  I get a few gun related ads regularly.  Putting something in the sidebar to help offset costs doesn’t sound horrible.  Please let me know your thoughts.
    • I am soliciting articles.  The requirements are simple, you have to have registered on the site.  The article needs to be provided in a word type document (Word, LibreOffice, Google Doc, etc.). It cannot be a sales article. You have to answer, “What is your favorite cartridge?” in the submission.
    • The subscriptions will be back as soon as I figure out how.
    • The posting schedule is 0630 Eastern Time, USA for me, plus random postings.

    Thank you again for being here.

            

  • This opinion is 103 pages long with the court’s opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, Kagan joined in that concurrence. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence. Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence. Barrett wrote a concurrence. Jackson blathered some words, pretending to agree.

    And Justice Clearance Thomas stood up and said, “You got it wrong.”

    After New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), this Court’s directive was clear: A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
    —Opinion, United States v. Rahimi, 602 S.Ct. ____ (U.S. 2024)

    This is where I stand as well. The state failed to meet its burden to show that §922(g)(8) is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. What seems to have happened is that they were looking hard for something that would allow them to ignore the precedents of Heller and Bruen

    Just as important as §922(g)(8)’s express terms is what it leaves unsaid. Section 922(g)(8) does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other §922(g) subsections. See §§922(g)(1), (9). And, §922(g)(8) does not distinguish contested orders from joint orders—for example, when parties voluntarily enter a no-contact agreement or when both parties seek a restraining order.
    —id.

    I haven’t really seen a historical firearm regulation that actually allows for the disarmament of a person. I’m not sure that Justice Thomas would agree.

    This case isn’t about a criminal being disarmed. This case is about a man in the middle of divorce proceedings where he was slapped with a TRO. We don’t even know if he had affective counsel. We don’t know if he was in attendance during the hearing.

    All we know is that the court believes he received actual notice and that he was allowed to participate. Not that he actually received notice or that he participated.

    Short story, when I was divorcing my first wife, it was not a good thing. She was looking for ways of messing with me. I arrived to pick up my kids for the Memorial Day weekend. My kids and I had made plans. She refused to answer the door.

    In the end, she came downstairs and we spoke. I backed away from her. Kept my hands in my pockets. Left without my children.

    I called my Lawyer, reported the entire incident. Told my lawyer to be on the lookout for a simple assault charge. My lawyer called the ex’s lawyer to make sure he knew that we were ready for that charge if it was filed.

    The ex’s lawyer swore up and down that there were no charges, no complaint filed.

    About a month later, the cops showed up in mass to arrest me. Failure to appear.

    My lovely estranged wife had managed to fill out the complaint so badly that they sent the summons to the wrong county. I never received it.

    The court didn’t care. They had put it in the mail, it was my responsibility to know that they had.

    If my Ex had been looking for a TRO when they held that hearing, I would have “failed to appear” but I would have been “given notice” and “had an opportunity to appear”.

    In addition, §922(g)(8) requires that the TRO restrain the accused from engaging in threatening behavior. Here’s the thing, being told “don’t threaten your wife” does not mean that you have ever threatened your wife. The defense and many of the Amici pointed out that the “don’t threaten” language is often just boilerplate stuff.

    This is much different from being found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, by a jury of your peers.

    The Second Amendment provides that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As the Court recognizes, Bruen provides the framework for analyzing whether a regulation such as §922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment’s mandate. “[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” 597 U.S., at 17. To overcome this presumption, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Ibid. The presumption against restrictions on keeping and bearing firearms is a central feature of the Second Amendment. That Amendment does not merely narrow the Government’s regulatory power. It is a barrier, placing the right to keep and bear arms off limits to the Government.
    —id.

    Damn, just damn.

    So this is where we start to see how come Justice Thomas is so good for us. One of the arguments that the state makes, over and over again, is that this particular infringement addresses a new societal problem or advancement in technology, and therefore, the court should use a “more nuanced approach” in matching historical regulations.

    The Court employed this “straightforward” analysis in Heller and Bruen. Heller considered the District of Columbia’s “flat ban on the possession of handguns in the home,” Bruen, 597 U. S., at 27, and Bruen considered New York’s effective ban on carrying a firearm in public, see id., at 11–13. The Court determined that the District of Columbia and New York had “addressed a perceived societal problem—firearm violence in densely populated communities—and [they] employed a regulation … that the Founders themselves could have adopted to confront that problem.” Id., at 27. Accordingly, the Court “consider[ed] ‘founding-era historical precedent’” and looked for a comparable regulation. Ibid. (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 631). In both cases, the Court found no such law and held the modern regulations unconstitutional. Id., at 631; Bruen, 597 U. S., at 27.
    —id.

    This paragraph guts all those state arguments. Any weapons ban is “straightforward” under Bruen and Heller

    Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment. First, it targets conduct at the core of the Second Amendment—possessing firearms. Second, the Government failed to produce any evidence that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To the contrary, the founding generation addressed the same societal problem as §922(g)(8) through the “materially different means” of surety laws. Id., at 26.
    —id.

    The state has been arguing that surety laws allow them to ban classes of firearms, or make an area a sensitive location. It is not clear from the record that surety laws were used as much as just existing.

    In this case, Thomas matches the surety laws to the regulation in question. Is that person violent? Have him put up a sum of money which will be forfeit if he does violence. This is a good match.

    There is much more to get from this dissent. I’m sure there will be more soon.

            

  • For those of you coming from GunFreeZone.net,  thank you for following us here.

    Miguel has kindly allowed us to forward GFZ to The Vine of Liberty.

    The story of why GFZ shutdown is below the fold.

    (more…)

            

  • Short of it,

    Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court.  It seems very narrowly crafted.  It is not a loss for the Second Amendment Community.

    Held: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual  may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment

    — Rahimi 602 U.S. ____ (2024)

    Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion with Kagan.  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson filed concurring opinions. Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

            

  • It has been a rocky end to the week.  GFZ is closing down.  I will be discussing with Miguel what goes, what stays, how long it is up, what might get archived elsewhere.

    Currently, there are two official contributors to this site, Hagar and I. I will be posting under my given name moving forward to help separate the “this is an official blog business post” from “this is a person writing”.

    We still have the Illinois PICA cases waiting for cert.  They went back to conference and were heard today.

    I apologize for the UGLY site.  Hagar is out doing her reenacting this weekend, I am not the “pretty picture” dude.   We’ll get some pretty pictures up soon enough and the site will look better.

    Thank you for coming along for the ride.

    Please add a comment if you got this far.  I really need to know that it is worthwhile going forward.

            

  • It could be worse, anticipation…

    One of the issues that we have in the Second Amendment community, is that infringers cluster. Nobody in Texas is passing bills like Illinois’ PICA, but California and New York did.

    These cases get challenged and then flow up the court system to the circuit courts.

    When the case finally arrives at the Supreme Court, we are begging for the Supreme Court to grant cert.

    But cert is only granted to a limited number of cases per term. The court wants to choose cases that will answer the most issues.

    One of the way of knowing that there are issues, is when there is a conflict between circuit courts, called a circuit split.

    The way it works is that when somebody in Illinois requests cert saying “sensitive places bans are unconstitutional” the state argues that all the circuit agree. The fact that Texas isn’t as enlightened as Illinois is not relevant. We know that the Fifth Circuit will agree with the 9th, 7th, 2nd, 4th and 3rd.

    The People’s argument holds just as much weight. It is just an opinion until there are actual differences.

    What this means is that only the infringing states with rogue inferior courts have hard the question of “sensitive places”.

    But there is good news for us. There is a sensitive place where we are forbidden from exercising our Second Amendment protected rights. The Post Office.

    The FPC, SAF and two people, Pate, and Mandry have filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division challenging 18 U.S.C. §930(a) and 39 C.F.R. §232.1(l) which bars firearm carry and storage on property under the control of the Postal Service.

    There is a good probability that this case will move more rapidly than others, with the state losing. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they will be dealing with a circuit split.

    The case is —Opinion, United States v. Rahimi, 602 S.Ct. ____ (U.S. 2024)

            

  • I’ve been working with computers since July 5th, 1976. On that day, I walked into a computer store, the first in the state, and asked for a chance to work with computers.

    The owner sat me down at a PolySci z80 computer, loaded BASIC on to it from cassette tape, then told me to have fun with it. He and his partner were having a discussion about me over at the side. I wondered over and asked them how to find the integer value of a number. They gave me the function.

    A few minutes later, I had a stream of numbers floating up the screen. I had written my first computer program, a prime number sieve.

    This was the first time I had sat down at a computer. It was the first time I had heard of BASIC. It was the first time I had written a computer program.

    It worked.

    I spent the next few years working with them. Biking, then when I got my license, driving the 5 miles to work every day. I headed off to University to study Computer Science.

    The “microcomputers” I learned on were the 8080/z80 and the 6502. When I got to my first Computer Science course, I had to learn to use the punch card machines. Then feed the cards through the reader, wait for the “main frame” to process my job, after which the big printers would spit out my program and results, to be filed for me to pick up.

    Whereas the microcomputers could run one program at a time for exactly one person, the owner of the hardware (person controlling the hardware), this main frame could run many programs at the same time. Each program belonged to a different person.

    This computer was so powerful, it had multiple CPUs and even had auxiliary processors to help things move faster.

    We had one big computer doing the work of many smaller computers. There were no personal computers in the computer science program. When they were finally introduced, they were used as “smart terminals”.

    My point in this, is that we made one big computer to do the work of many smaller computers. We gave that one big computer extra as many extras as it could handle.

    It had washing machine sized disk drives that held a stack of platters you could take out in a special container. I don’t remember how much they held, but it was likely measured in Megabytes.

    When I left to work for the Army, we again had one big computer that many people logged into and did work. The first time I wrote a program on that Cray X/MP I was sure the computer was broken.

    After you finish writing your program, you need to compile it. The command to do that is cc test.c Where test.c is the name of the file holding your code.

    After the computer compiles your program, it then links your object with system libraries to create a file holding an executable program.

    The Cray was so fast that it had finished the compile/link process between the time I pressed “enter” and the time the cursor had scrolled to the next line. I thought it had failed. It hadn’t. It was just that fast.

    For the next 15 years, the team I was working with was attempting to create better and better “super computers” by clustering smaller computers together to form distributed parallel processors.

    At the same time, we were working with new disk technology, RAID. With RAID, you could combine multiple disk drives to create a larger logical disk drive.

    There were three primary technologies involved.

    1. Mirrors. Exactly two drives hold exact copies of each other. These increase read performance and redundancy. A single disk failure does not cause the drive to fail, as the copy is good to go.
    2. Striping. This takes two or more physical drives and treats them as if each drive contained a “stripe” of the logical drive. This could be used to make logical drives that were larger than any physical drive available.
    3. Striping with parity. This takes three or more drives. When a block of data is written, it is written across all but one of the physical drives. The remaining drive holds the parity of each block.

    We normally refer to “Striping with Parity” as RAID. In this mode, you can lose any one drive of the array and the remaining drives can be used to reconstruct the missing data.

    This means that if you are using a RAID with 7 drives, you are get 6/7 of your disk space available to use.

    All of this is very good.

    Now we come to the problem, this large drive is attached to exactly one machine. That machine has to share it before other machines can use it, over the network.

    You can find these for sale as Network Attached Storage, or NAS.

    Mirroring and RAID have a limitation of the drives have to be nearly the same size. If you have 6 1T drives, the last drive has to be a 1T drive as well.

    This means you are stuck. If you want to “upgrade” a RAID, you have to create a new RAID with the new drives, transfer all the data to the new drives, then decommission the old drive. Simply put, this is a painful process and not easy. I might have room for 6 drives in the case, I don’t have room for 6 more drives.

    The file system which, in my opinion, did the best at this is ZFS. ZFS combined the low level mirroring, striping, and RAID with an actual file system. It was easy to use and had many great characteristics.

    Friday, I had 4 ZFS pools of devices on two different computers. Total disk space exceeding 25 TB. The issue was that half of that space wasn’t usable by me. I wanted something that met my requirements of good redundancy and good file sharing and great stability.

    I decided to use ceph.

    With Ceph, you set up a replication policy. This policy tells ceph how many copies are needed and how distant they need to be from each other.

    Consider a ceph cluster with 5 nodes, each node holds 2 Block Storage Devices (osd). If the policy simply has a replication policy of “have 2 copies”. Both copies might be on the same node. If that node fails, you lose your data, until the node is back up.

    If you set your policy so that you require 2 copies and those copies are required to be on different nodes, your cluster doesn’t lose access to the data, even if one node goes down.

    Ceph is even more powerful than that. It has a hierarchy of groups. Root, datacenter, room, row, pod, PDU, rack, chassis, and host.

    A PDU is a power distribution unit. With this level of grouping, you could easily say: I want three copies. I should be able to survive any room in the data center going dark and not lose access to my data.

    So where does this put me?

    In a stupid place. I had 2 primary home nodes. Those nodes were configured to have one virtual node each, for a total of 4 nodes. This allowed a replication policy of 3 copies. No two on the same OSD. There must be a copy on a different host.

    The problem with this, is that I am now burning three times as much space. There are ways with ceph to reduce this, I’ve not done it yet.

    Using 3 times as much space meant that I couldn’t move the data I needed to free up the ZFS drives to use else where.

    I was recently gifted a computer. That computer now has 4 drives in it. 3 TB, 12 TB, and 12 TB. In 30 minutes, I added 24 TB of space to the cluster, and a new node. I will add two more nodes to make this cluster safe and redundant.

    I now have data flowing from ZFS to the new drives. Once that is completed, I will be able to take 12 TB that was part of a ZFS pool and turn them into OSDs.

    Life is good, learning is good. Today is rearranging the shop day. I am going to take the CNC router apart, stash the important parts, ditch the things that aren’t worth keeping or turn them into metal for other uses.

    This will give me back 1/3 of my shop space, and access to the shelves behind. The new workbench will have a place to go, and I will make progress on organizing my shop. To make it easier to work in.

            

  •         

  • It depends on what your definition of “is” is. To quote a Democrat.

    The ATF has not changed the contents of form 4473. The same questions, the same information, the same warnings are there in the 2023 revision as were in the 2012 revision.

    But since I’m not stupid, I can look and see that the form changed. What gives?

    What gives is that the ATF rearranged the form. This is supposed to have been to make the form better for the buyer.

    On the earlier forms, the first page had your personal identifying information and the questions. The back of the first page had a bit more and was where the information about the firearm was placed.

    Yes, people sometimes missed that there was a second page.

    This was easily corrected because the FFLs would just tell the customer to finish filling out the form and point them to the second page.

    No issues.

    But, as my local FFL pointed out, the ATF is not a nice agency. They lie and cheat. It used to be that he would set them up in a back room when they came to do an inspection. One day, he walked in on them taking pictures of 4473s. This is against the law.

    He called them on it. Moved them to the main room where he could watch them. No more photos of 4473s.

    Each 4473 required the agent to take two pictures and to be able to prove that image 1 was related to image 2. Since that was nearly impossible, the images weren’t as useful to the ATF as they wanted.

    The latest changes rearranged the form so that the first page now contains your personal identifying information as well as the firearm(s) identifying information.

    The questions now run over from page 1 to page 2.

    These new forms can be used to create a registry buy just scanning the front of the form. Or take a picture of it.

    Many people, myself included, believe the ATF made the change to make it easier for them to clandestinely create a firearms’ registry.

            

  • In —Opinion, United States v. Rahimi, 602 S.Ct. ____ (U.S. 2024), the Supreme Court found that the BATFE had exceeded their authority in changing the definition of “machinegun”. The ATF argued that they were just interpreting the law that congress had passed.

    This is in keeping with our governmental forms. The three branches of the government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch creates laws, which must be approved by the head of the executive branch. Or the congress must override the president’s veto. The executive branch then implements those laws. The judicial branch defines what the laws actually mean.

    In addition, the judicial branch is tasked with evaluating laws that are in conflict to determine which law overrides the other.

    So, if the ATF can just make up laws, where did the 4473 come from?

    It came from a Democrat, of course. Instead of yelling about “mass shootings” and “school shootings” the cry in the 60s was about assassinations. That is to say, three assassinations. JFK, RFK, and MLK. Because three assholes killed three men, we had our ability to acquire firearms infringed.

    In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. This codified the first full on gun control in the country. The NFA attempted to establish full gun control with full registration and prohibitive taxes on all firearms, but it only did it to machineguns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, and suppressors.

    The reason given was that this would force all the bad guys to buy guns in person.

    The 4473 was part of the executive’s implementation of the GCA of 1968. Every question on the 4473 is supported by code, not regulation. If you read §922(g) you will see that it is translated directly into questions in from 4473.

    From 1968 through 1993, the process was a buyer went to the FFL, decided what firearm they wanted to buy. Filled out the 4473 and walked out with the firearm.

    There was no waiting.

    If a bad guy wanted to buy a gun, he could walk in, fill out the 4473 and just lie. This meant that when he decided to use his gun in an illegal way, or was picked up as a felon in possession, they could add on lying to an FFL, lying on the 4473.

    This would stop the bad guy from doing bad things.

    Since evil people are going to do evil, and criminals will do criminal acts, this didn’t actually work like the gun-control infringers said it would. It didn’t stop anybody. To get a feel of just how bad this is:

    On a personal note, the form fails to keep certain persons from obtaining firearms. This failure is seen in Question 11.f.
    —id.

    This was a former ATF agent. He truly believes that a piece of paper stops people. This is the same sort of person that gets women killed by denying them firearms but giving them a restraining order.

    One of Hagar’s friends was murdered by her estranged husband. She had a restraining order against him. This didn’t stop him from killing his wife and children. Nor did taking some of his guns from him. He had decided to commit murder. Why would violating a restraining order slow his rampage down?

    I’m sure that when she held up the restraining order, it stopped the bullets he fired at her.

    In the 90s, the infringers started screaming that the 4473 wasn’t stopping criminals. They demanded that background checks be done before a person took possession of their firearm.

    The original goal was to add waiting periods while the background check was being done. There are states that have excessive waiting periods. I was upset when purchasing some rifles and all pistols required me to wait 21 days. Oh, even though that sounds like three weeks, it is really 4 weeks and 1 day. Because those are business days. This was when I was back in Maryland.

    The NRA was the group that got NICs as part of the deal. When some moron tells you that the NRA supported background checks, they didn’t. What they did was fight for a compromise of an instant background check, with the default being you get the firearm.

    Some “compromises” they defeated were options where the state had 30 days to reply, but there was no penalty if they took longer. Just ask J. Kb. how the state is perfectly willing to use their incompetence as an excuse to deny you, your Second Amendment protected rights.

    So, is form 4473 “Constitutional”?

    The answer is yes. This is because the form is a proper implementation of the GCA of 1968.

    Is the GCA of 1968, as amended, Constitutional?

    Bruen did not answer that question. Bruen told the inferior courts how to properly apply the Heller methodology.

    If the individual’s (proposed) conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, the state has the burden to show representative regulations from this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

    If we have a hypothetical case, where a person was stopped for a routine traffic stop, and during that stop admitted to smoking a little weed and the cops find he is in possession of a firearm. According to §922(g)(3), he is a prohibited person. He is going to jail. See the Range case.

    Did his conduct implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment? Yes. Gun, bear, possess, Second Amendment implicated.

    If the Second Amendment is implicated, the state has the burden to prove this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation (in the 1790s) would have prohibited a person who smoked weed (or drank) from keeping or bearing arms.

    Since the state cannot do so, §922(g)(3) is Unconstitutional.

    Which takes us to lying to an FFL.

    for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.
    —id.

    If §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional, then lying about being a drug user is not a material fact. Thus, no violation of §922(a)(6).

    Which only leaves §924(a)(1)(a). This gives a penalty for making a false statement or representation. This is where I yell IANAL!!!!

    My reading says that this could stand.

    Regardless, the 4473 is still here. It is being challenged because §922(g) is being challenged.

    Final note:

    Q7: Has ATF issued a new Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record?
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, federal agencies are required to seek public comment and assess the burden associated with any changes to federal forms, through a process managed by the Office of Management and Budget. Consistent with that process, ATF has not been required to issue nor has it issued any changes to the Form 4473, since April of 2012. When the form was last changed (2012), ATF published the changes in the Federal Register and provided a 60 day comment period for the public to comment on the form, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. ATF received no public comments.
    —id.

    See, the ATF is not changing the form very frequently, OOPS!

    ATF Form 4473 (5300.9)
    Revised August 2023
    — ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Rev. Aug 2023

    It seems like the ATF lies even when they have nothing to lie about.