Month: May 2024

United States V. Avila No. 40, Order

This case was another challenge to 18 U.S.C. §922(k) possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

Mr. Avila is a bad dude. He was charged with four counts, 2 counts of distributing fentanyl, 1 count of distributing cocaine, and 1 count of felon in possession of a firearm.

Mr. Avila, through his state provided attorney, asked the court if §922(k) was constitutional. This was construed by the court as a motion to dismiss count 4, §922(k).

This case is now dead because Mr. Avila pleaded guilty, and I’m not paying to find out exactly what he pleaded guilty to and what he got out of it.

I’m sure we all play the game of “Guess what their opinion will be based on how they describe the problem.” I do that with court orders/opinions.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held these words secure an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592. A short two years later, the Court held this newly recognized right—in one way or another—applied against the states. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010) (plurality opinion) …
No. 40 United States v. Avila, No. 1:22-cr-00224, slip op. at 3 (D. Colo.)

That jab of “A short two years later” is nasty. It is nasty because, as a court, he knows that a right delayed is a right denied. Waiting 2 years for our rights is “A short two years.”. I’m not feeling good about this judge right now.

Despite this broad consensus and the agreement of the United States with the approach developed by the lower courts, the Supreme Court held the lower courts employed “one step too many.” Id. at 2127. “Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Id. Bruen instructs lower courts “to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding” and go no further. Id. at 2131. In doing so, courts should “consider whether ‘historical precedent’ from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.” Id. at 2131–32. This task, the Court acknowledged, “will often involve reasoning by analogy,” which “requires a determination of whether the two regulations are ‘relevantly similar.’” Id. at 2132 (quoting C. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 741, 773 (1993)).
id. at 4–5

We again have that jab, this court is saying that because inferior courts had decided to turn the Second Amendment’s protections into a joke, the Supreme Court should have done the same.

The citations are correct. There is nothing extraordinarily bad about them. What they are, though, is second best.

When the Supreme Court says, “We hold …” they are telling you the answer. After they give the holding, the rest is dicta, explaining that holding.

On the record before it, the Court concludes that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The Court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number—like the one Defendant is accused of possessing—are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.
id. at 11

The court plays word games again. Is a firearm an arm, with in the meaning of the Second Amendment? All firearms are arms. Is a firearm without a serial number an arm? Yes. The state argues constantly that “ghost” guns are arms that should and can be regulated. Is a firearm with a serial number an arm? Yes. Quod erat demonstrandum

If a firearm with a serial number is an arm, and a firearm without a serial number is an arm, then a firearm who’s serial number has been removed is still an arm.

Even though the court did not explicitly say that the plain text of the Second Amendment doesn’t cover the individuals’ conduct, they did not say what part of this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation is analogous to §922(k).

This means the court profoundly erred in this decision.

A bit further, the court actually says it:

In sum, the Court holds that the kinds of firearms § 922(k) prohibits are not “Arm[s]” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and as a consequence Defendant’s constitutional challenge to this statutory provision fails.
id.

We are seeing this argument over and over again. After Bruen, I expected the fight to be in the realm of “sensitive” places. And that battle is happening. It does not appear to be a winning argument for the state. Mainly because after the Bruen court told the states that they can’t just declare a large area a “sensitive” place because cops sometimes patrol, the states then proceeded to do just that.

On the other hand, the courts and the state turning when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) into a first step hurdle.

Is it an arm? Well, duh, it’s a gun. That makes it an arm. Go read Heller‘s definition of what an “arm” is. There are no asterisks in the Second Amendment. There is nothing that says, “we are only talking about these types of arms.” or “we aren’t talking about those types of arms.” It is all arms.

Concealed-carry, because this is coming to the US

Violent Muslims (redundant) have started attacking Jews with 2x4s in Amsterdam.

 

The protestors in the US have been intimidating and threatening Jews. It won’t be long until they start doing thinks like this.

Despite arrests, the protests in the US have gotten worse because the protestors in Blue cities have not faces real consequences.

Hitting someone with a 2×4 is dangerous and potentially lethal.

I know this doesn’t apply in Amsterdam, but where I live, if you swing s 2×4 at me in anger, I can legally force feed you a bullet.

This will continue until people learn consequences, and getting shot is a severe consequence.

Tuesday Tunes

A common thread in many of the left’s attacks is just how dumb we are. How out of touch with reality we are.

Listening to some city rat tell me that I can’t survive without the cities because of stock markets just makes me cringe.

Years ago, I was in a room with my mentor, his girlfriend, a mutual friend as well. We were working on some difficult programming to solve a complex 3D problem in a reasonable time.

His girlfriend popped up and said, “Come on, guys, this isn’t rocket science.”

We grumbled, then looked up at each other and laughed. “Um, yeah, it is.” We were working on an issue with the Hubble Space Telescope for NASA.

My point in this, is that people can have skills that are not obvious. People on the right often have physical and mechanical skills that the left does not consider important.

I like this song because it is another example of people underestimating some old dude just because he’s old:

Dear Gun Control Advocates: This is how you measure your success.

Sorry, I misspoke, I meant to say your lack of success.

April 2024 marked the fifty-seventh consecutive month of more than one million National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks for gun sales or transfers.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) took the FBI data and ascertained that more than 1.2 million NICS checks were for gun sales/transfers.

April 2024 Marks 57th Consecutive Month of One Million-Plus Background Checks for Gun Sales (breitbart.com)

That is about 57 million firearms added to the hands of the Citizens.

Sorry…not sorry.

So you want to be a hobby machinist

(2100 words)
This is the second most satisfying hobby I’ve had. The first being firearms.

My first experience was watching a retired machinist running a shaper at the Smithsonian. It was being run from a line shaft.

Watching that cutter push its way through a hunk of steel, leaving a little curl of metal behind and a smooth surface, fascinated me. I started looking into getting some sort of machine tools while be broke as …

To that end, I started looking into David Gingery’s Build Your Own Metal Working Shop from Scrap

This is a series of books that take you through building a “complete” metal working shop starting with almost nothing. He starts by having you create a foundry. After creating a foundry, learning to make patterns and cast aluminum, you make the castings for a metal lathe. Once you have a lathe, you then make a shaper, then a horizontal milling machine, a drill press, and then some accessories.

This sounded like about what I could afford. I had the wood working tools to make the patterns, it was only a matter of making castings and from those casting, real machines.

I made parts of the shaper, parts of the lathe, most of the dividing head, and never completed any of them. For reasons.

It turns out that pattern making is hard. Molding is difficult, casting is not easy, and machining all those parts is a little a pain.

In the process, I did learn a little bit.

At the same time, I was watching YouTube videos, attempting to learn something useful.

Then I got lucky. I had a new job. I had some cash in hand. I was talking to the gentleman who was selling cool patriotic stuff. He was selling expanding batons. I looked at those and thought, “I could make those”. With that, I explained that I was about to purchase a lathe and asked if he would be willing to buy batons if I made them.

“I have an old SouthBend Lathe, if you are interested.”

I went to look. He had the lathe, he had tooling for it, it was oily (a good sign), no real sign of rust. And he had a Bridgeport Mill. And a horizontal bandsaw.

It was too good of a deal to pass up. I purchased it all for $1750, delivered. It is important to understand what a deal this was. Three lathe chucks, $1000 each. A mill vise, $700. The machines themselves. This was a freaking win fall.

This is the absolute best way to start. Find somebody who is selling for way below cost and luck out. You have the three machines you will want in your shop.

Buying New

Read More

It seems teachers are too dumb to carry, but good enough to teach.

I do not understand that wrecked train of thought. OK, you are opposed to ‘guns in schools” and the only way to enforce your position is to say that teachers have the brains and intellect of drone bees.

“For the purposes of protection, you can’t have it in a lockbox, you can’t have it somewhere where you can’t reach it; it has to be where you can get it when you need it, and that is on your person,” he said.

(JC) Shegog also explained the mental shift of someone learning to carry a weapon for protection, a role he feels requires someone’s sole focus.

“Now, your teacher and protector, especially in public schools, are going to have to learn to shut one off and turn the other one on, and that’s unheard of, when we already have people who are mentally designed and equipped and volunteering to be protectors,” Shegog said.

Security consultant suggests alternative to arming teachers in TN (wkrn.com)

If you carry a gun, the only thing you should be able to do is to carry a gun? Out of the gate, millions of people legally carrying a weapon every day for the past 30 years and still going about other business without tripping over their shoelaces or shooting up their places of labor automatically belies that statement, hell it ridicules it thoroughly.

Mr. Shegog is a security consultant, and the gun community has had experiences with these co-called consultants in the past because some of them appear to be afraid of losing business if gun training is not mandatory.

It seems he is no exception:

I went to his website and could not find qualifications other than “retired military.” I also found his Youtube channel and has very little about shooting and the stuff I was saw went from downright amateurish to people I believe might have been students sweeping themselves while holstering.

I wanted to see what kind of training location he had and found his address.

It is for “security” reasons, I am sure.

 

 

This is a threat

This happened at Penn.

 

Every part of this interaction was a threat of violence.

“Don’t do something you’re going to regret” is absolutely a threat. There is no way to misinterpret that.

The strobe flashlight in his eyes and blocking his path was more than a threat, and was possibly assault. Especially when coupled with the statement, “I’m doing it for a reason. Get the message?”

“If you know what’s good for you, you’re gonna get the fuck out of here.” Said on a public college campus.

“I hope you have a good doctor. How’s your dental plan.” Obvious threatening statements.

I think that last statement might not be legally sufficient to draw a gun but I’m be damned tempted. And I definitely wouldn’t convict someone who shot in self-defense after hearing that.

I think back to my college days. I was a chemical engineer and I worked with a lot of pipe and valve in the lab.

I think I would start carrying a 12 or 15-inch adjustable wrench, along with a set of safety glasses, as school supplies for ChemE lab.

If a wrench needed to be deployed for other reasons in s pinch, I’m glad I had it on me.