There are numerous cases that are bouncing closer and closer to the Supreme Court. The readers of the tea leaves all agree, the Supreme Court is going to static.

There are people who have spent decades observing the Supreme Court, attempting to predict what they will do in any particular situation. Some of them have great track records, some reaching as high as 50%!

Cases exist in different “states”. Everything before final judgement is interlocutory. This means that the case hasn’t reached a conclusion at this level.

The current spat of infringements being challenged are all in that interlocutory state. The Supreme Court doesn’t normally act on cases that are still interlocutory. They much prefer everything done and ready for them to give an opinion that is going to stick.

So don’t worry when you see the Supreme Court hasn’t done something.

The reloading series is nearing an end, I have a few more articles to write in that series.

If you think there is something I’m missing, please let me know in the comments. I might have it queued up for an article already, or I might have missed it.

For those of you that do progressive reloading, yes, I know it is the cat’s meow. I might touch on it, but I’ve never used a progressive press. I’m not the right person to write that article.

As always, feel free to give us your thoughts in the comments below.

Have a great weekend!

We have some bad news. The case which was put on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket asking for a writ of injunction has been denied.

The total information we have currently is:
Dec 14 2023 Application (23A486) referred to the Court.
Application (23A486) for a writ of injunction pending certiorari presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied.

B.L.U.F.
A quick update regarding some 2A cases kicking around. Touching on how bad case law begets bad case law.
(1200 words)

In June 2022, the Supreme Court issued the Bruen opinion. This case answered one question: Is New York’s “proper cause” requirement for a CCW constitutional?

The Supreme Court answered with a resounding “NO!”.

In dealing with the question, they stated that subjective criteria was not acceptable. They went on to explain how they reached their opinion using text, history, and tradition. In the associated dicta, they told the Article III inferior courts how they should analyze any Second Amendment challenges.

It is important to understand that the Supreme Court gives explicit answers regarding the question they are answering and instructions on how the inferior courts can do it themselves.

When an inferior court says that the Supreme Court hasn’t issued an opinion on something, that is the court being cowardly, ignorant, or attempting to subvert The Constitution.

If the plaintiffs make a Second Amendment challenge, they are responsible for proving that the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment.

To take just one example, a 16-year-old wishes to purchase a firearm. They are refused because they are underage.

The text of the Second Amendment reads; 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.

The state might argue that 16 year-olds are not part of the people for reasons. But this is not the first step.

The plaintiffs wish to purchase a firearm. All firearms are arms. Thus, the “Arms” requirement is met. They wish to purchase, possess arms. This satisfies “to keep and bear arms”.

They are a part of “the people”. That means the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated.

If the state starts arguing that they are not part of the people protected by the Second Amendment, that is part of the second step: history and tradition.

Anytime the state is arguing that something is not an arm, or it is not being kept, or it isn’t bearing, or they are not part of the people, they are attempting to subvert the clear intentions of the Supreme Court.

Once the plaintiffs have proved that the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the state. The plaintiffs are done.

In that second stage, the plaintiffs can argue why particular regulations are not analogous, or not of the correct period. That is their job, to eliminate the regulations presented by the state from being considered.

Everything else the state brings up can be challenged as being irrelevant. If an expert is giving an opinion on legal matters, that is inappropriate. The legal experts are the attorneys and the Court, experts give opinions about non-legal issues.

The First Domino

Read More

(2600 words)

All recipes for charges are given by weight. Normally, to 0.1 grains.

Each powder has a different density and a different required charge.

Powders come in different granule shapes. There are flakes. There are cylinders, formed by pushing wet powder through round holes, then cutting them into small cylinders. Finally, there are spherical granules.

The surface area of a granule is the biggest factor in how fast a given powder burns. The same composition, in different shapes, will burn at different rates.

For each lot of powder, the density for that powder should be the same, on average. For each can of powder, the density will be the same.

The volume required to for a charge is the density of the powder multiplied by the weight of the charge.

There are powders that take small charges, some take larger. For example, the Hodgdon recipe for 45ACp says that IMR Blue can be used with a starting charge of 9.0 grains. They also say that you can use Clays with a starting charge of 3.7grains.

There is only a 0.3grain difference between the starting charge and maximum charge when using Clays. This is not a lot of room for error.

There is a bit more range for IMR Blue. Regardless, the point of this is to let you know that we are measuring small values accurately and repeatably.
Read More

The sound quality isn’t great in this version, but here is the one and only Eartha Kitt

And with much better sound:

B.L.U.F.
First article about choosing powders. There is another article coming on the same topic, covering different parts.
(1500 words)

I had been “gifted” a box of reloading supplies. This was a bunch of 30-30 bullets, some miscellaneous things, and 200+ .45 ACP cases. This sat on a shelf for years before my friend mentioned that one of her co-workers was selling his reloading press. I offered to buy it.

Today I know that I over paid. What got was a Lee Single stage press. Not enough for me to reload, but enough for me to at least get started. Along with all of those .45ACP cases was a set of dies for .45ACP. Maybe two sets. I know I have two sets of .45ACP dies now.

I decided that I was going to learn how to reload to make some range candy.

My history with guns started very late in life. I managed to sell a domain name for a boat load of money. That money went to numerous things. That included a 7.62×39, 7.62×51, 5.56×45, 9×19, and a .45ACP. Along with each of those, I purchased 2000 rounds of each caliber.

I was down to around 500 rounds of .45ACP and made the reloading plunge.

So there I am, with numerous tools and no idea how to use them. Since my press said “Lee” on it, I purchased the Lee reloading manual. I still have that book.

I read the section on how to reload twice and then went shopping for what I needed to complete my first round of reloading.

According to that book, I needed:

• Bullets
• Primer
• Powder
• Calibers
• Powder measuring device

Do NOT use this list. It is incomplete, in my opinion.

The measuring device they recommended was a volumetric device. Little calibrated scoops. Each scope would measure out a fixed amount of powder, by volume.

The Lee people had taken many samples of different powders to find their density. Once they knew the density of a powder, they could translate a load given in grains into a volume in cubic centimeters. If a powder was consistent enough in density, and the safe charge could be made with one of their powder measure scoops, they would give that measure in their recipes.

They are so confident in this method that each(?) die set from Lee comes with a powder measure scoop that should work with some powders for that caliber. And they have that reloading information with their die.

As you can tell from this tale, I bought into this. The cost of the entire set of scoops was less than a scale.

Having decided I was going to reload this way, I had a set of powders that “worked” with this method. I went to my LGS and looked through all the powders they had until I found one that matched the list of powders I had recipes for. That happened to be Accurate #5.

I brought it home, primed 5 cases, put powder in 50 cases. Checked the powder level in all the cases, then seated the bullets in each case.

All the rounds worked. I had successfully reloaded 50 .45ACP cartridges!

Why did I choose that powder?

Read More

B.L.U.F.
What is the difference between an as applied challenge and a facial challenge to law?
(1550 words)

In Antonyuk v Hochul, the plaintiffs challenged parts of New York’s CCIA on facial grounds. This is to say, they claimed that the challenged legislation is always unconstitutional.

For example, it has been established that a ban on all handguns is unconstitutional. There is no case in which it would be considered constitutional. The state argues around the fringes, if a ban on all handguns is unconstitutional, how about a ban on some guns?

Consider a different civil right, a right protected by the constitution, the right to assemble for free speech.

In my town we have a commons. It has a pretty gazebo and during the summer months they will have open air concerts and art festivals and discussions and all sort of assemblies. If I want to show up and start playing my fiddle (badly) at the gazebo, there is no issue.

On the other hand, if I would like to have an ‘event’, I need a permit.

The first question asked is, “Does this touch fingers with a core civil right?” The answer to that is an unequivocal “YES”.

Since the proposed conduct, having an event on the public commons, implicates the plain text of the First Amendment, it meets the first prong of a facial challenge.

Permitting is well established, so only a lawyer interested in fleecing me would take the case, but assume it got into court.
Read More