• I preface this by saying that I’m not Jewish. However, having dated several Jews over the years, I can tell you that the food is INCREDIBLE. Since Yom Kippur began on Friday at sundown, I thought this delicious parve (meaning it can be eaten any time by Jews, provided they aren’t fasting) dish would be just perfect to share today. Remember that Yom Kippur is not a “happy” holiday; it’s a religious time of reflection and introspection. Mostly, people who celebrate Yom Kippur just want to be left alone for their 25 hours of attonement. After the fast, families tend to enjoy a small feast together.

    Ingredients:

    • 1 package puff pastry dough
    • 1 large onion, diced and sauteed
    • 2 (7- and- 3/4-ounce) cans salmon
    • 2 medium potatoes, cooked, cooled, and drained
    • 2 eggs, whisked (for egg wash)
    • sesame seeds, for topping
    • 1/4 teaspoon pepper
    • 1 teaspoon salt

    Defrost the dough per package directions. Pay attention to this, as you don’t want it to be too moist and melty, but it can’t be frozen either. Roll out the dough to 1/4″ thick, and then cut into 3-1/2″ squares.

    Combine all the ingredients for the filling, and mash it very fine. You can use a food processor if you want, but it’s better to do it by hand. You want it to be fairly smooth, almost like a pate, so that it fills the pastry well. Put a heaping tablespoon of filling into the center of each square. Fold the dough over, and press to seal. You can do this “pirogi style” (fold it in half, seal with fork tines for a pretty edge) or Jewish style (fold the corners up and seal it, making it back into a square, then flip it over and put the seam side down. Put your knishes onto a parchment paper lined cookie sheet.

    Brush the knishes with the egg wash, then sprinkle with sesame seeds. Bake at 350*F for 40 minutes, or until they are golden brown.

    Notes:

    If you celebrate Yom Kippur, these are designed to be eaten AFTER you’re done fasting. You can make them ahead of time, and then just reheat them easily enough. They can tide you over until the rest of your meal is ready! If you aren’t Jewish, these can be enjoyed anytime. As a bonus, they’re also safe to feed to observant Jewish friends.

  • The date was July 24, 1969. The world waited to see the spacecraft to return. They should land in a very accurate area, some of 6 miles by 10 miles Timestamp 1:14:10

    The video is 640×480 NTSC, (Never Twice the Same Color).

    There were multiple US warships in near the splashdown zone. Thousands of men to recover the command module before it sank, or something else bad happened.

    The day is October 13, 2024. The booster for StarShip returns to the pad, where it lands within the cradle of a gigantic pair of arms, called “The Chopsticks”. The booster has extended four short pegs which will rest on top of the catch arms.

    All of this is being filmed in beautiful 4k (or better).

    The decision was made to attempt the catch after the last test flight landed within a few centimeters of the target.

    Later this day, the booster is lowered and preparations are started for the next launch.

    Yes, we are going to Mars.

    Aim small, miss small. We have gone from a CEP of 5 miles to a CEP of 0.5 inches.

  • (b) Machinegun

    The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, ⁣ automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
    U.S.C. Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE § 5845, (last visited Oct. 13, 2024)

    (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
    U.S.C. Title 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 921, (last visited Oct. 13, 2024)

    In VanDerStok, the ATF is arguing that the term may readily be converted was not defined by congress. This makes it ambiguous. An ambiguous term is normally clarified by the rule making procedures.

    The gist of the argument is ATF determination letters regarding classification of things as hunk of metal or receiver has always focused on the term “readily”. According to the ATF, the new rule merely clarifies that “readily” can be modified by the auxiliary components included with a kit or in the same purchase.

    When asked if the ATF could just as easily claim that all AR-15 lower receivers are machine guns because they can be readily converted to M-16/M-4 receivers, the ATF responded that AR-15 receivers are not being restored because they never were.

    The issue is twofold, first, we don’t trust the government. The second is that there is zero difference between an 80% AR-15 lower receiver and an 80% M-16/M-4 lower receiver.

    Both require drilling holes for the trigger pin, the hammer pin, and the selector switch.

    Both require milling out the fire control group pocket.

    The M-16/M-4 lower receiver requires one extra hole.

    The Pivot pins are 0.250 +0/0.003 below the deck. The hammer pin is 0.375 +/- 0.002 below the pivot pin. The trigger pin is 0.3140 +/- 0.0015 below the hammer pin and 0.8430 +/- 0.0015 to the rear. The selector is 0.2250 +/- 0.0015 above the trigger pin and 1.9680 +/- 0.0015 to the rear of the hammer pin.

    1.9680 +/- 0.0015 to the rear of the hammer pin and 0.4980 above the hammer pin is a 0.1250 +0.0015 -0.0000 hole.

    This hole is the difference between an M4 and an AR15 lower receiver.

    If the ATF considers a piece of edgedetched steel to be a machine gun, and they consider a hunk of aluminum with a jig and instructions to be a receiver, what would stop them from deciding an AR15 receiver is an M4 receiver?

  • It’s good to know that Harris has everything under control. Her advertising team is on the job, let me tell you.

    Enjoy!

    https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFmVuDq3/

  • Confirmation Bias, another woke pseudo-science?

    One of the most infuriating things to hear a “journalist” report, is that something is a “dog whistle” for some nefarious think.

    The idea that when I say, “Peacefully march to the Capitol” the reality is that this is a “dog whistle” to storm the Capitol.

    The remarkable thing is that only these hard hitting, truth to power, journalists can hear these dog whistles. The rest of us can’t. But I’m told that this is all super secret communications directed at me and people like me.

    Microaggression is the pseudo-science that allows a “victim” to be victimized by minute aggressive words, phrases, and actions. Hold the door open for a female student with her arms full of books is a microaggression. You are telling them that they need a male’s help.

    Other things that sound like pseudo-science are real. Neuro linguistic programming, is one. Except it is very real. I’ve seen it used. I’ve used it. It works, and it works well.

    The gist is that you can associate words, phrases, and actions with feelings. Then using those words, phrases, or actions can cause the programmed person to react with the same feelings.

    Confirmation Bias is also real. It is the process of being more likely to believe something that confirms what you already believe. Nothing woke about it. We all suffer from it. Some of us just understand it exists and work to defeat it. I.e., have coping methods.

    What’s the Big Deal about Frames and Receivers?

    The bump-stock ATF rule was a clear-cut case of the ATF overstepping their legislative authority.

    The ATF’s frame and receiver rule, not so much. I’m not sure if we are going to win this one, on regulatory overreach.

    The ATF has never given clear rules on how to determine if something is a frame or a receiver. The only way to know if an item is a hunk of aluminum or a hunk of plastic vs. a frame or receiver, is to have a determination letter from the ATF.

    You need to send the ATF the item you have made. If the ATF determines it is a frame or receiver, they tell you that. I do not know what will happen to you because you have just sent the ATF a frame or receiver (a firearm) that is not serialized, as required by the GCA of 1968.

    By examining the determination letters, manufacturers were able to black box the point at which an item crossed the magic line, in the ATF’s view, and became a frame or receiver.

    In looking at the determination letters, the context is always the same, “This is a frame or receiver because only these operations need to be done to reach the fully functional stage.”

    The determination letters describe those operations. “Drill a 5/8in hole, then use a 4/8 rotary file to complete the frame or receiver”. It is a determination based on the number of operations, the difficulty of those operations, the equipment needed to complete those operations.

    The difficulty of an operation is based on the skills required. Today, a numb skull can read the directions and achieve acceptable results, a fully functional firearm, in only a few hours of work. Given my current skill set, the tools I have available, I figure it should take me about 2 hours to fully mill an 80% lower. A 50% lower would take me 4 to 8 hours.

    The ATF is arguing that they are applying the same logic, to fulfill the same legislative language. That, as such, they have not changed how they do the rule making, only that they are allowing for modern tools and methods.

    Poison in the Well

    When a rogue inferior court wants to deny The People their rights, they have no problem finding help from other rogue inferior courts.

    Years ago, Bush SR instituted a new educational directive, “No Child Left Behind.” The concept of this program was to make sure that every student received the resources they needed to succeed. Regardless of their abilities.

    This might mean that one set of students was receiving instruction in advanced math and literature while another set of students was receiving instruction in remedial math and literature. Both sets would receive enough instruction to succeed at their level.

    That was the boss’s instructions.

    But teachers don’t implement, they follow directions. By the time the line workers, the teachers in the trenches, received orders on how to implement “no child left behind”, it had become a mockery of what was intended.

    The teacher’s unions said that “no child left behind” meant that no child could be held back. Instead, every child had to pass every year. It was designed to fail, and it did. And Bush was made to look worse.

    The district courts have the ability and the responsibility to read Bruen and all Supreme Court opinions and to follow them.

    Instead, they play stupid, claiming that they don’t have clear guidance. Since their immediate superior court hasn’t given them guidance, they then must turn to other courts, where they get to cherry-pick.

    Thus, we have multiple district level courts claiming that “does the conduct proposed implicate the Second Amendment?” requires the plaintiffs to prove that the arm in question is a covered arm. Then they narrow the definition of “arm” to exclude firearms they don’t like.

    Who Had “Good Judges in New York” on their Bingo Cards?

    It appears that Trump’s appeal of the so-called “fraud” case was heard.

    According to the State of New York, a businessman, asked to borrow money. He offered as collateral different property. As part of the negotiation process, he valued his property at the top of the market. They bank valued it at less.

    The bank testified on behalf of the businessman that they intended to give the loan, regardless of the value of the collateral, because they had done loans to this businessman in the past. And that he had repaid all past loans, with interest, in full. It was a good business decision to make more money from him.

    The loan was given, the businessman repaid the loan with interest. All parties were satisfied.

    The state decided that this was actually fraud in play. That the bank must not have done due diligence in assessing the collateral. Because they didn’t do due diligence, the businessman got away with defrauding the bank.

    Even though he repaid the loan, as he promised he would do.

    At the appeals level in NY State, the 5 judge panel dug into the prosecutors. Some video is difficult to watch, there is so much blood spilled.

    The prosecutors seemed to be begging to escape the courtroom without sanctions.

    If the questions are any indication, this case will be dismissed as the political hatchet job it is.

    Bianchi to get his day in court?

    Finally, the Bianchi case is before the Supreme Court seeking cert. The plaintiffs, (good guys), had appealed the horrific opinion by the Fourth Circuit with in 15 days of the opinion being published. The state asked for and was granted a 30-day extension.

    The plaintiffs did not oppose the extension.

    When a case is submitted for certiorari, the opposing party is granted time to file an opposition brief. If this is done through the emergency docket, a justice will deny the request or present it to the court.

    The justice might require a response and in general, the opposition will file a brief in opposition.

    Occasionally, a stay or injunction will be issued, and the case will be moved to the regular docket to request a writ of certiorari.

    Once on the docket, there will be a briefing schedule set. Once the final briefs are submitted, per the schedule, the case will be distributed for conference.

    In conference, the justices will decide if they want to grant cert.

    If a case were to be distributed for conference this week, and it was granted cert, the case would be heard in the 2024-2025 term with an opinion issuing sometime in July or August, at the latest.

    By default, it looks like the response is due with in 30 days. This would require the state to file their response by September 23rd. On September 11th, they asked for 30 days more. This was granted. The state’s response is due October 23rd.

    If this schedule is met, then the case will be distributed on November 6th. It would be heard in conference on November 22nd.

    The state has requested a 30-day extension. This would push the first time the case could be considered to January 10th, 2025.

    This could mean that the case would not be heard until the 2025-2026 term, with an opinion issuing in July/August 2026, 4 years after the case was originally GVRed.

    The justices want to conference on this case in 2024. They did not grant the full 30 days. Instead, the deadline for the response is now November. 12th.

    The Math of weaving

    I have a little gizmo for winding thread from my bobbins into a coil. Each full round is one yard in length. Other versions of the gizmo warp 2 yards with each full wrap.

    There are several tools around the fort that measure yarn/thread by the yard. This is helpful when it is time to warp (or dress) your loom.

    The process starts with determining the wraps per inch of your yarn. This is accomplished by wrapping the yarn around a ruler until one inch is filled. The yarn should be touching, but not overlapping.

    This gives you the number of wraps per inch.

    The yarn we are using is 22 wraps per inch.

    Next, we convert this to ends per inch. This is determined by the waving pattern used. An over/under plain weave, the density factor is 1/2. For a twill, it is 2/3. We intend to do a twill. This means our factor is 2/3 which gives us 14.6 ends per inch.

    This can be rounded down to 14 or up to 16. Odd setts are more difficult.

    The loom has a weaving width of 46 inches. This is 736 ends at 16 EPI.

    The warping board I used has 35 pegs. Three are not used for length but for the cross and ???.

    The pegs are 2 yards apart. One full run is thus 64 yards long.

    We would need 47,200 yards of yarn. At 400 yards per hour, that is around 120 hours of spinning. Note that you will need the same amount for the weft as well. That is about 53 pounds of wool.

    After I finished making a new peg for the warping board, I started winding. The distance between pegs was enough that I had to take a couple of half steps to move back and forth.

    With Ally’s help, pulling the thread of the cone, I was able to do about 3600 yards in 4 hours. I was getting faster there at the end.

    My warp is only 10 yards long.

    The next step is to finish restoring the reed then to dress the loom. I’m sure that Ally will take pictures of that too. So you poor folks will have to see pictures of me dressing the loom.

  • I’ve talked about having access to fire in the past, but I haven’t really gotten in depth about how to start one. I figured that was a decent place to go, this Friday, what with all the storm disaster stuff going on. This is a really complex topic, and I’m going to include some videos so that you can see as well as read about the subject. If you have more information, please feel free to add it in the comments below!

    So fire is started when three elements come together: fuel, oxygen, and heat. If you have all three, you have what you need to start or continue a fire. Take one away, and if a fire has already started, it will die out. That’s the science end of it. (CalSafe)

    We have lots of ways of starting fire, whether it’s for pleasure, cooking, heat, or protection. The easy methods are things like lighters, everstrike matches (metal “matchsticks” that sit in fuel), blow torches, and that sort of thing. Generally speaking, these methods “just work” when you use them. They provide enough of the three elements that you can get a fire going. But what if you don’t have one of these easy methods? What if your fuel has run out, or your flint is used up?

    There are ways to start fires that are “in the middle” when it comes to difficulty level. Regular matches are in this category (because they can easily get damp, don’t stay lit very long, and have a tendency to dissolve over time). Strike-anywhere matches are less prone to problems, and usually have much longer stems, which makes them easier to hold. Unfortunately, they aren’t literally strike anywhere, but require a rough surface of some kind to get them lit. I would put the most modern style of ferro rods into this category as well.

    Then there are the methods that require a certain level of skill: flint and steel, bow drills, other types of friction styles, and the more esoteric types like using magnifying glasses. To use any of these requires practice, repetition, and education. It is important to learn at least a couple of these more difficult methods in advance of emergencies, because it’s too easy to lose all the easier methods of making fire. (more…)

  • Hey folks! Chris is exhausted after a long, hard day of work at the Fort at No. 4, and asked me to put up a Friday Feedback for y’all.

    Chris, using an 18th century warping board.

    First and foremost, we went up to the Fort today because we want to warp our new loom. In order to do that, we have to get the warp thread organized. That’s done on a warping rack or warping board. You can see in the video that Chris is winding the thread along a very long pathway over several of the pegs. We figure we wound about 3900 yards of wool thread today, in about 3 hours. It was a lot of work on Chris’s part. What you see him doing in this video is a very tiny clip. Think that, done hundreds and hundreds of times. When all the winding was done, it was tied to keep it organized, and then pulled into a large hank that keeps the threads organized and neat, while making it shorter and easier to carry.

    A man threading a warping board.
    Chris, winding thread onto the warping board.

    The warping board you see in the picture here is a proper 18th century one. We only wanted to have about 10 yards of fabric when we’re done weaving. I’m sure Chris can explain the math of this one for you later (I still don’t really get it), but three pegs on either side, wound in batches of 16 (not strings, but 16 rounds of all the pegs), basically is the warp for about 10 yards of fabric. I can’t tell you how many batches; it was a LOT. But look at all the pegs. They go all the way to the floor. It’s entirely possible that they would have used the entire board to warp a loom for many, many yards of fabric. It’s truly incredible!

    (more…)

  • You are scrolling through the cesspool that is social media, and you stumble upon an article with a title of “FEMA refuses access to NC donations.”

    Your mind goes, “Yeah, FEMA sucks. Just another example of the government ‘helping’.”

    Why?

    Because your confirmation bias is at work. What you read matches what you expect to read, it matches what you want to be true.

    A leftist reads, “Trump makes racists comments at rally.” Their confirmation bias says that this is true.

    The confirmation bias can be so strong, that no amount of evidence can break through. The fine people hoax is a good example of this.

    We call it a hoax. They say we are lying. They know we are lying because “MAGAts” always lye. Besides, they have seen the video. He says those words.

    Confirmation bias can overtake common sense and people that generally make good decisions.

    The other day, Ally was telling me about Marjorie Taylor Greene saying something about government weather control in the house.

    I’ve heard MTG say really dumb things. She seems to be a good representative, but occasionally, she doesn’t apply common sense to what she is saying/thinking.

    Since I have come to expect MTG to say such “dumb things”, my confirmation bias kicked in. I was thinking, “Yeah, that sounds like something she would say, buying into the latest conspiracy theory.”

    This led to the next words out of my mouth, “I’ve not verified that she said that.”

    Ally told me she had. I accept that as a given. I still have not verified. I believe it to be true, I don’t know that it is true. Therefore, I tell you to verify before you pass it on.

    This morning, She showed me a video purporting to be a CBS “cut and paste” of answers into her interview.

    In the video, the top version showed Kamala answering a question without actually answering, but cleanly. The bottom version showed her answering the question in a faulting, stilled way.

    The interview is done with cut edits. A cut edit is when there is no transition from one scene to the next. It just “cuts” from one scene to the next.

    A standard interview technique is called the “one camera interview”. The camera is set up behind the interviewer, focused on the person being interviewed. The interviewer asks their questions, the camera records the answers. The camera is then repositioned facing the interviewer. They then run through the same questions with the camera recording the questions.

    Back in the studio, the two videos are spliced, making it appear that they are two cameras.

    You can see this used in some interview fakes. A person positions a camera pointing at themselves. They ask a series of questions. They then splice the answers from different interviews and different questions as the response. This makes the person being “interviewed” look like an idiot.

    When I was presented with the video of Kamala, my confirmation bias kicked in. Yes, CBS would do this. Yes, Kamala is so bad at answering questions, they likely had multiple takes. This is real.

    This caused me to go, “This is too good to be true. I need to verify.”

    CBS’ ’60 Minutes’ aired two different answers from VP Harris to the same question
    U.S.C. Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE § 5845, (last visited Oct. 13, 2024)
  • Well, the VP debate was interesting. I thought it was MUCH better than the presidential one, for what that’s worth. I was pleasantly surprised that the moderators weren’t horrid (they had moments, but they weren’t horrid). I was very surprised at how well Walz did, as I’ve not seen him do much public speaking outside of rallies. Vance, on the other hand, did incredibly well. I was thrilled to see him answer each and every question put to him. The same cannot be said of Walz, Harris, OR Trump. If you’d like to read the transcript of the debate, you can do so here: CBS News Transcript.

    Tim Walz got hit with a rough question fairly early on. The moderators asked him whether it was true that he’d lied about being in China during the Tienanmen Square protest in ’89. He did not answer the question. He went on a rambling diatribe about small town America and taking teams on trips out of country. The moderator had to remind him that he hadn’t answered the question, and ask it again. He still dodged it:

    “MB: Governor, just to follow up on that, the question was, can you explain the discrepancy?

    TW: No. All I said on this was, is, I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just, that’s what I’ve said. So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest, went in, and from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance.”

    Almost immediately after, the moderator asked Vance about why he changed his stance from being anti-Trump to being the VP pick. I loved Vance’s response:

    “…I’ve disagreed with the President, but I’ve also been extremely open about the fact that I was wrong about Donald Trump. I was wrong, first of all, because I believed some of the media stories that turned out to be dishonest fabrications of his record. But most importantly, Donald Trump delivered for the American people rising wages, rising take home pay, an economy that worked for normal Americans. A secure southern border. A lot of things, frankly, that I didn’t think he’d be able to deliver on. And yeah, when you screw up, when you misspeak, when you get something wrong and you change your mind, you ought to be honest with the American people about it.

    It was a gentle but firm kick in Walz’s teeth, that Vance could be honest about his mistakes, and about his personal growth.

    (more…)

  • According to the Solicitor General of the United States:

    And Congress made clear in the statutory history that the reason it used that term (weapon) is because there are objects out there, toys and tools, that have a well-known non-weapon use but that actually do expel projectiles through the action of an explosive.

    A — a cap gun is an example of this. It — it expels bird shot, and so, therefore, it would fit within the functional definition. But it’s not a weapon because it’s not an instrument of combat or intended to be used in that way.

    The gist of the ATF’s argument is that the GCA of 1968 defined a frame or receiver as something that could be readily converted into a firearm. Therefore, the defining aspect is how much time and skill it takes to convert a thing into a firearm.

    If we have a small, purpose built, CNC machine which we load with a piece of 7075 bar stock, we push the button, and 3 hours later there is an AR15 lower receiver, is that 7075 bar stock a frame or receiver?

    The ATF is arguing that if you sell that CNC machine along with the piece of 7075, then the 7075 is a receiver.

    JUSTICE ALITO: — if I show you — I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped-up ham, some chopped-up pepper, and onions, is that a western omelet?

    GENERAL PRELOGAR: No, because, again, those items have well-known other uses to become something other than an omelet.

    The key difference here is that these weapon parts kits are designed and intended to be used as instruments of combat, and they have no other conceivable use.

    And I think the further evidence comes from the fact that Respondents themselves agree that a disassembled gun qualifies as a weapon. So this is on page 37 of the Anderson brief.

    So, if the parts have “well-known other uses”, then it isn’t a frame or receiver? How about a business card with an etching of a firearm component? Business cards have “well-known other uses”.

    JUSTICE BARRETT: General Prelogar, I just want to follow up on Justice Alito’s question about the omelet.

    Would your answer change if you ordered it from HelloFresh and you got a kit, and it was like turkey chili, but all of the ingredients are in the kit?

    GENERAL PRELOGAR: Yes. And I think that that presses on the — the more apt analogy here, which is that we are not suggesting that scattered components that might have some entirely separate and distinct function could be aggregated and called a weapon in the absence of this kind of evidence that that is their intended purpose and function.

    So it is not a frame or receiver unless there is evidence that the intended purpose is to make a frame or receiver? Again, this means that if I have a 50% lower and the skills and instructions, that makes it a receiver?

    A 0% lower is a piece of bar stock. A 50% lower is one where no machining has been done to the forging. An 80% lower is one where the surface has been decked, the buffer socket machined and threaded plus several other operations, stopping short of being a receiver
    But, if you bought, you know, from Trader Joe’s some omelet-making kit that had all of the ingredients to make the omelet and maybe included whatever you would need to start the fire in order to cook the omelet and had all of that objective indication that that’s what’s being marketed and sold, we would recognize that for what it is.

    And it — it doesn’t stretch plain English to say, I bought omelets at the store, if you bought all of the ingredients that were intended and designed to make them, especially under statutory language that refers to something like breakfast foods or things that can be readily converted to make breakfast.

    The last time I went to the grocery and purchased a taco kit and some ground beef, I came home and told my wife, “I brought home tacos”.

    She would have smacked me upside the head if I had told her, “It’s readily convertible into tacos, so it is the same.”

    JUSTICE BARRETT: I have a question about AR-15s. So Judge Oldham expressed concern that because AR-15 receivers can be readily converted into machine gun receivers, that this regulation on its face turns everyone who lawfully owns an AR-15 into a criminal.

    GENERAL PRELOGAR: That is wrong. So I want to be really clear about our interpretation of the statute. We are not suggesting that a statutory reference to one thing includes all other separate and distinct things that might be readily converted into the thing that’s listed in the statute itself.

    The difference, in the ATF’s eyes, between an AR-15, perfectly legal to own with no tax stamp, and a “machinegun”, requiring a tax stamp, is one hole placed above the selector switch.

    They are so concerned about that one hole, that if that location is even marked, it is considered a machinegun.

    Never mind that you need an auto-sear, an M16 trigger, an M16 disconnector, an M16 selector switch, and an M16 hammer, just a dimple makes that receiver a machinegun.

    What the Solicitor General is arguing is that it is a jig that makes a hunk of aluminum a receiver. This strongly implies that if somebody were to create a jig for drilling the hole for the auto-sear, that would make almost every AR-15 lower receiver a machine gun.

    Or it could go back to the evil days of the 6 magic parts. If your AR-15 had any of the 6 magic parts in it, then it was a machine gun. If you had any one of an M16: auto-sear, hammer, trigger, disconnector, selector, or bolt carrier, then you had a machinegun.

    Now it will be a simple jig. How simple? It is an L shaped piece with two holes drilled in it. The top hole is a drill guide. The lower hole has a pin press fit. Put the pin into the selector hole. Put the small leg of the L over the deck of the receiver. The small hole is in the correct place to drill for an auto-sear.

    You can read the transcript if you would like. It isn’t difficult, but some arguments are difficult to follow.