It has been a busy week for me. I’m still reading legal filings, but it is harder and harder to write about them.

The state says the same thing, over and over again. The courts keep looking for ways to avoid doing the right thing.

It reminds me so much of the aftermath of Heller.

I do remember freedom week in D.C. For about a week, I had a permit to carry in D.C. If you had a CCW or lived in a constitutional carry state, you could legally carry a concealed firearm in D.C.

A week later, that was gone.

It looks like the rogue courts have just about settled on how they are going to avoid obeying the Supreme Court.

At the same time, we are seeing more and more lawfare. Different entities suing people involved with the firearm industry to force them out of the business.

At the same time, the ATF is attempting to shut down private sales of firearms.

They just issued their final ruling on Thursday. Under the new ruling, just about anybody that transfers a firearm can be required to get an FFL or to go through an FFL.

We are getting closer to getting the next case before the Supreme Court. That is our only hope of bringing these rogue courts into line.

A reader passed this on:

HWFO Highlights from the David Hogg vs. Spike Cohen Debate at Dartmouth

Spike used some of my stuff. Here’s where you can find it for your own use.

It might be worth the read.  I found myself distracted by the content.

The comments are open, do you have anything you think we should read or which would be good for GFZ?

(1250 words)

This is another example of the state twisting and bending to have a small chance of winning.

Given that the appeal is to the Ninth Circuit, they will get the stay they are requesting.

In 1999, California passed a “one gun per month” or OGM law. It is actually difficult to track because it has automatic expirations built in. Each time it is reinstated, it gets worse.

The current incarnation hinders the purchasing of any firearm, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts.

In other words, this law could limit you to just one chunk-o-aluminum per month.

This was challenged before Bruen. The Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Bruen and other Second Amendment cases decided by the Supreme Court required no discovery and no experts. This is because the question is all legal.

The courts are the experts. The lawyers bring the arguments, the courts follow the law.

If a court tells you that it is qualified to do historical analysis of “the historical tradition of gun regulation” they are admitting they are incompetent.

The job of a lawyer or judge is to know the law. If a court rules on anything, they have examined a historical tradition. This is their job.

On March 11, 2024, the district court issued an order denying the state’s request for summary judgement and granting the plaintiff’s (good guys) motion.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Emphasis added.

The concept of ancillary right is well established. The case most commonly cited is —Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. V. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1983). To bear arms, I need to be able to keep them. In order to “keep” arms, I need to be able to acquire them.

If my ability to acquire arms is hindered, such as an arbitrary limit on the number of purchases, then my right to keep and bear arms has been infringed.

This satisfies the plain text of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has stated that once the conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, that conduct is presumptively protected.

Notice that word, “presumptively”. The state argues that just because the conduct is presumptively protected does not mean that their infringement is unconstitutional. They can present arguments that might overcome that presumption.

Just like a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the law is presumed unconstitutional until the state proves it is constitutional.

The burden rests fully on the state to provide that proof.

While the state is arguing that things that are “presumed” are not actually, they are arguing that a bit of dicta in Heller fully protects their infringing regulation. “Presumptively lawful” means that it is presumed. It is still open to challenge, and when it is challenged, the state has the burden to prove a historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The state resorts to redefining words, First, the OGM law does not implicate conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text because it does not prevent law-abiding citizens from keeping or bearing arms for self-defense.—Nguyen v. Bonta, No. 24-2036

If the regulation infringes, then it implicates the Second Amendment. The regulation does not need to prevent, it merely needs to hinder. If the person is a part of The People, then they are protected. They do not need to be in the subclass of “law-abiding” nor “citizen”. Remember, there are many aliens that are here legally who are part of the national community.

Finally, the right is to keep and bear arms, not to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

While the Heller opinion does reference self-defense, it does not restrict the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Some wishful thinking by the state:

Infringe means to destroy or to hinder. Not “prevent”.

Which brings us back to “presumptively lawful regulatory measure”. This is dicta. Anybody reading this passage honestly understands that the Supreme Court is saying that they have not looked at the question of the constitutionality of commercial sale of arms. For the moment, in that particular case, they are going to presume it is lawful.

This means that it is open to being challenged.

If it is challenged, then the challengers (plaintiffs) have the burden to prove that the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated.

Is their conduct hindered? Yes. Does their conduct have anything to do with keeping or bearing arms or the ancillary actions associated with keeping or bearing arms? Yes. Then the burden shifts to the state to prove this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation that matches.

That is what Bruen said, that’s what Heller said.

Your state Supreme Court hates you and cheats.

Monday evening, PST, the trial court enjoined the unconstitutional magazine ban. As the judge wrote, you don’t use a magazine to spread butter, it is an arm.

The 2A community jumped into action. Since it was after hours, LGS (Local Gun Stores) opened up and the people flocked to buy magazines.

As a song put it, “The joint was jumping.”

Less than an hour and a half after the injunction was granted, a commissioner at the state Supreme Court issued a stay.

Here’s the thing, that commissioner did not have time to read the injunction before he stayed it.

Since this is in the state court system, I do not have good visibility into it. I’ve not read the injunction, nor have I read the stay. All of this is from my feeds.

At least the people of California got a full two weeks of freedom. The state of Washington didn’t even get a full two hours.

A song that my wife and I used to fall asleep to, after a bad day.

I’m happy to say that it has been a few years since it was required.

There is a style of communication called “mitigated speech”. I learned about it by watching a video by Malcolm Gladwell giving a speech about his book Outliers.

It comes about when somebody uses language that is designed to not offend, rather than to say things clearly.

One of the examples given, was of a co-pilot at Washington National Airport saying to the pilot something like, “Wow, there is sure a lot of ice coming down.”

The pilot, busy with pre-takeoff work load, replied, “yeah, it’s nasty out there.” and then proceeded with the checklist.

The co-pilot waited a little bit and asked, “I wonder if we should think about getting de-iced?”

The pilot didn’t do anything. A few minutes later, they were at take off speed, they rotated, came off the ground, and a few minutes later crashed into the Potomac River.

The co-pilot was using mitigated language. Instead of saying it clearly, such as, “I’m seeing ice build up on the wings. We should wait for de-icing”, he instead said things that did not make it sound like he was attempting to override the pilot’s authority.

Mitigated speech is also used when a person is afraid of the consequences of making a decision.

If you say, “I’m hungry.” You haven’t given a hint, you haven’t questioned anybody. You’ve “just” made a statement. In an environment which is trained to understand mitigated speech, this is a command to make dinner.

When somebody who is autistic, who is used to attempting clear communications, with a formalized response, “I’m hungry.” or “What’s for dinner?” are a simple statement or a simple question. They are not commands.

In the same way, if I hear those things, I am likely to acknowledge the statement and answer the question, I’m not going to take them as commands.

My wife used to use mitigated language, ALL, THE, TIME. It led to significant stress in our relationship.

I showed her the video, she asked me, “Why didn’t the pilot just do the de-icing?” I responded, “Why didn’t the co-pilot just say it clearly?”

She got it.

She has been working diligently to stop using mitigating speech. For her, that mitigating speech was pure protection. She could honestly say, “I never said that.” and be correct. If she said something and I read it correctly but was unhappy, she “never said it”. If I didn’t do it, I “wasn’t listening to her”.

It was amazingly safe and comfortable for her.

We are more balanced today. She’s put in the most effort. I listen for that mitigating speech and turn it into concrete speech with verification. Both of us put in an effort.

When It All Breaks.

A few years ago, my wife’s best friend realized that her husband had dementia. He went from the person in charge to having difficulties functioning. This hits me hard because of my mother and father.

My wife reached out, told her friend that she was there for her. My wife works constantly, but she was sending texts and messages to try to stay in touch. She offered help and had it turned down.

Today, my wife got a long text message from her friend. My wife was accused of being a horrible person, a horrible friend, a horrible mother. She was accused of not caring because she hadn’t brought dinners over. That she hadn’t stopped in.

It was mitigated speech that did this.

My wife was sending texts. Her friend wasn’t responding. In her friends “mitigation codebook,” it said, “not answering a series of text messages is a request for a visit.” Chapter IX, Section A, subsection g, paragraph 17. Right?

My wife didn’t have the same codebook, her codebook said, “not answering a text is an indication of being busy.”

She assumed her friend was just too busy to make time to text or message with her. And since she had made multiple offers to help with no response that wasn’t negative, she had done all she could and all her friend could accept.

I gave my wife some guidance on language. Sent her over to her friend’s house. It worked. My wife came back with things to do for her friend. Which she was happy to do.

Kids got tasked to help out the friend, little things, like my 18yo boy collecting and taking the garbage out to the curb for her. Cost my son 7.25 minutes, I timed him.

Dementia is horrible

My wife was barely back home from shopping, including picking up stuff for her friend, when her friend called with an Emergency.

My wife was off like a shot.

It appears that her friend’s husband had “taken a handful of sleeping pills”. Wife got there, evaluated, called 911.

Police, EMT, Rescue all rolled on the code. The husband survived. He did answer to in the affirmative for wanting to kill himself.

I’m a little upset that he didn’t get a 72hr hold, but he’s still at home. Friend is still dealing with him. But at least my wife knows what is expected of her. The kids know what is expected of them.

Conclusion

I’m proud of my wife. When she received that first message, she broke. She went defensive. But with very little coaching, she turned it around, recognized that it was a plea for help. And was there for her friend.

For me, I have to make the time to call my father, every Monday. He needs that contact. I want to support him. I do not want him to feel alone.

For the rest of you, take the time to say “I love you” to those that you love. You might lose them, you don’t want to ever regret the last thing you say to a loved one.

The home shop if full of neat things that you can make. My primary tools are a 5×13 South Bend Lathe, shipped to the Reynolds Machinery Company on December 31st, 1947 and a Bridgeport mill from the late 50s

The rule of thumb for any hobby is that you will spend more on tooling than you do on the primary machines.

My F5 camera body cost about $2000. I then proceeded to spend $3000+ dollars on lens, film scanner, color charts. Speed lights and so forth.

My lathe, mill, horizontal bandsaw, milling vise, three chucks, a handful of tooling cost me $1500. The delivery charge was another $200.

Since that time, I’ve spent much more than that on tooling. Quick Change tool post, quick change toolholders, indexable tooling, measuring equipment. Well, you get the idea.

The thing is, that as you go through the shop making things that accomplish real goals, there is a never ending need to make tools for making tools.

BlondiHacks is doing a series on a tool holding tool to help you grind bits. I want to make it.

I have an indexing head that I made that is about 80% complete. That includes casting all the parts that needed castings. I’ve got a shaper started, but I was having trouble casting a couple of parts and went on to other things.

One of the weird things that has happened, is that things that were not available 5 years ago are now being made and are available. This has led me in a long circle where I want to make a backing plate for an ER-40 collet chuck.

Before I spend anything on that project, I intend to make my “casinator”. I have drawings that are “good enough” to get started. But here’s the deal, I need to make a couple of counter bores.

These counter bores have to be to 0.0005 inches in size. If they are too big, the bearing will fall out. If they are too small, the bearing won’t go in. If they are just a little too small, the bearings might not function correctly. I have to get those bores nearly perfect.

The tool used for this is either the lathe, a pain for a rectangular piece of plate, or a boring head.

I actually have two boring heads. One for micro boring bars and one for large bores.

To use a boring head, you create a hole. It can be a through hole or a partial hole. The hole needs to be large enough for your boring head to fit.

The boring head is already positioned correctly because you have not moved it since you put the clearance hole in place.

You then adjust the position of the boring bar, You adjust the depth it will go. Then you start the mill to make a cut with an automatic down feed.

When the quill reaches the correct depth, it stops, and you can retract the boring head/boring bar. Carefully measure the size of the hole, adjust the boring bare, cut again.

This up and down motion will make the bore the correct diameter. You can hold very tight tolerances with quality boring heads. Which I have.

The problem, is the base of the hole doesn’t look good. As I write this, I realize it doesn’t matter. As long as the bearing seats fully, the surface finish doesn’t matter.

Now, the point of all of this, is that I wanted to upgrade to a “boring/facing head”.

This piece of magic allows you to advance the boring bar as it is rotating. Instead of cutting a larger and larger diameter bore, moving down through the material, you put the boring bar at the correct depth and cut outward, “facing” the bottom of the hole smooth.

I’m not going to pay north of $500 for one of these things. And I’m not willing to purchase unknown items from E-bay.

For the last bit, we’ve been talking about how the apparatchiks have been moving to try to redefine what the plain text step is in Heller and Bruen

The judge agrees with us, the Seventh Circuit judges, Wood and Easterbrook, looked at their two-step method and said, “The Supreme Court can’t be talking about us.”. Then said they got it right, and the Supreme Court’s opinion matches theirs.

Or as a former president put it: It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. If the — if he — if “is” means “is and never has been, that is not — that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. —Samuel Johnson, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary: infringe (1773)

The Seventh feels it can define any word to mean anything they want it to mean.

Having defined the word to mean exactly what they wanted it to mean, they then claim that they have investigated themselves and found that they had done no wrong.

Again, Judge McGlynn takes the Seventh to task. … has come at this question from a different direction … by the Supreme Court.

But here is the kicker, he tells the Plaintiffs that they must brief both arguments. That of the Seventh’s ridiculous contention that you have to prove that an arm is protected under the Second Amendment before the state has an opportunity to prove a historical tradition of regulations. But the Plaintiffs must also argue using the correct methodology, as laid out in Heller and affirmed in Bruen of text.

The state is going to say: The Seventh has told you that LCM’s and Assault Weapons aren’t protected arms, so you can’t challenge the law on the ground that they are protected arms.

They will contend that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving that the arms in question are arms. Since the Plaintiffs did not meet their burden, the state does not have to show a historical tradition of firearms regulation that is a match.

The Plaintiffs are being required to argue that “assault weapons” are protected under the Second. That is the only argument they need to make.

The court has warned the state, “Make sure you brief historical tradition, or you might lose.”

No matter how this goes, it will be appealed. I just enjoy bringing you news of courts and judges that do get it right.

There is every indication that this judge will do the right thing.