awa

Oregon Measure 114

On Friday, Dec 23rd, 2022 Assistant attorney general Harry B. Wilson argued before Harney County Judge Robert S. Raschio to lift his temporary restraining order holding the purchase permit requirement of Measure 114.

This is the case which saw the state appealing to the state supreme court of Oregon on an emergency appeal and having it firmly squashed. Interesting Updates on Bruen Cases At that point the case goes back to the county court to be heard.

At this time all parts of Measure 114 are being held by injunctions issued by the county court. This is interesting because the only place to appeal from the county court is to the state supreme court. The state may argue that the case should be moved to federal court but that hasn’t happened yet.

Because the case is not within the federal court system there is no appeal to the 9th circus court. The 9th circuit court is very much an anti-gun court. The twists they have put on cases to rule that every state gun infringement is famous. The state could appeal the denial of the state supreme court to the US Supreme Court but I don’t really think that the state wants the US Supreme court to step into any part of the Measure 114 fight.

As is normal with the infringers, the argument is that their particular infringement “will save lives” and “is constitutional”. In this particular case they are also arguing that the plaintiffs (good guys) didn’t directly challenge the universal background checks and thus the court shouldn’t be ruling on it.

The question wasn’t asked is a reoccuring theme in looking at Supreme Court decisions. It is also that way in appellate court decisions. There are times when the court will hear a pleading to take the case and they will reform the question. When the case is finally argued it is always about one or more specific questions.

In some cases we’ve seen this in 2A issues. The circuit courts changed the question in order to be able to rule in favor of the infringing state.

The State’s argument is that there is a “loophole” that allows prohibited persons from buying firearms from FFLs (and others). The argument is that sometimes the Oregon State Police get so busy that they can’t reply to Oregon State Police Firearms Instant Check System (OSICS) within the 3 days required by federal law.

Continuing the argument the state says that in the last 4 years they have stopped around 6,600 prohibited people from purchasing firearms from FFL. “from illegally buying guns” as the AG puts it.

From published data OSICS seems to be running around 0.9% denials. Out of every 1000 people filling out the state version of a 4473 (which could be the federal version), 9 people were denied (or investigated, it is unclear from the reports).

Of course there are no easy to find references to number of people that were prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm from an FFL that were denied. There is a fair bit of antidotal data that says that there are many more people incorrectly denied than there are actual prohibited persons attempting to buy firearms from FFLs.

My LGS FFL has told me that he has had a number of people get all the way to filling out the 4473 and when they looked at the form just walked out of the store. It happens.

The AG continues his argument that because they OSICS gets the answer back within minutes for a “significant percentage of background checks” that there should be no real issue in allowing more time for all the others. The actual numbers on “significant” is somewhere between 38% and 41%. Which means that more than half of the people asking for permission to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are subjected to a more intensive background check.

And those 60% would have their rights denied.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs (good guys) rightfully points out that because Measure 114 has no limits on how long it can take for the OSICS to get back to the FFL, that it can easily become a defacto gun purchase ban. Does anybody really trust the government at this point.

Why does it take the ATF upwards of 90 days to give permission to buy a muffler? Sometimes longer. The number of stories of people waiting years to take possession of their NFA items could fill this blog.

It all comes back to the same thing, infringing gun grabbers want to take guns from the law abiding and leave only the police and criminals with guns.

And remember, when you need a man with a gun, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

NJ FU to SCOTUS Bruen Opinion

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen holds significant implications for carrying a handgun in New Jersey and the law governing the issuance of permits to carry a handgun. The Bruen decision establishes that states cannot deny permits to carry a handgun to otherwise-qualified citizens who fail to show that they have the “proper cause” to carry a handgun. New Jersey law relies on a similar standard, considering whether an applicant has a “justifiable need,” in determining whether to issue a permit to carry a handgun.

In accordance with the precedent established in the Bruen decision, laws requiring showings of particularized need are no longer legally viable to determine whether a person may carry a handgun in public. The Bruen decision does make clear, however, that the Legislature can enact laws to protect our communities from threats to public health, safety, and welfare posed by gun violence, which take into account as appropriate the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling while continuing to promote and enhance public safety.

The first paragraph agrees that NJ can no longer require a “justifiable need”. “All lawful purposes” is all that is needed. (That is the standard phrase I was told to put on CCW applications when they ask “why?”)

The second paragraph acknowledges that there are some laws that can infringe and Bruen did say as much. It is that the Bruen statement was much more limited than what the NJ legislature (and NY) did.

Statistics show that expanding handgun carrying creates safety risks, helping to fuel the epidemic of gun violence. For example, a study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that the estimated average rate of officer-involved shootings increased by 12.9 percent in ten states that relaxed restrictions between 2014 and 2020 on civilians carrying concealed firearms in public. Accordingly, evidence demonstrates that more guns on the streets can translate into more acts of gun violence. To mitigate the impact of having more people carrying guns in public places, steps must be taken to better ensure that those who exercise the right to carry are responsible, law-abiding, and appropriately trained individuals who would not pose undue safety risks if armed in public places.

Here they have lost it. There is NOTHING in statistics or votes or polls that allow any law that infringes.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court recognized that states may prohibit individuals who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from carrying firearms in public, and endorsed the use of “licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense.” Although the Court did not provide a complete list of lawful requirements, it specifically cited a “background check, mental health check, training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements” as permissible. The purpose of these checks, the Court explained, is to “ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’” It is thus important to bolster and improve the process in this State for ensuring that only such individuals possess and carry firearms. Toward that end, this act strengthens the criteria and background investigation requirements that are used to determine whether an applicant is qualified to carry a firearm in New Jersey.

But Bruen doesn’t actually say that that background checks, mental health records check, training in firearms, and in laws regarding use of force were permissible. Bruen says that 43 states are shall-issue and may require… This is not the same as giving permission. This is a statement of the current situation. English is hard for some people.

By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime, those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitutionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied challenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50-51

— Bruen

It is always important to understand that the Supreme Court is always answering the question that is put to it. They can’t answer questions that are not put to them. So the question was asked in Bruen is it constitutional to require good cause to get a permit to carry? The court answered “Hell NO!” and then went on to instruct the inferior courts on how they should answer other second amendment questions.

It is highly likely that at some point in the near future there will be lawsuits filed questioning the requirement to get a permit to carry at all. At that point the state will be the defendant and will have to provide the district court with analogous laws from around 1791 that show that there were laws requiring government permission to carry a gun. There aren’t any that are not outliers.

Of course NJ went deep into the “sensitive places” places.

Heller as quoted in Bruen says “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings…” (No other places are explicitly listed in the pull quote in Bruen from Heller.

So they have schools and government buildings from Heller but again, the question of are all government buildings “sensitive places” has not been asked of the court.

To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 2131-2134.
–Bruen

Here it is explicitly stated in Bruen that a place being crowded does not make it a “sensitive place”.

From Bruen “Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.”

Here is that magic phrase again, which we saw in Miller “we are also aware of no disputes…” This is court speak for “nobody asked the question, nobody presented evidence, thus we can’t answer the question.”

From Miller, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen we have the following list of “sensitive” places that the Supreme court has listed.

  1. Schools
  2. Government Buildings
  3. Legislative assemblies
  4. Polling places
  5. Courthouses

Note that Bruen removed the “Government Buildings” and replaced it with “Legislative assemblies”.

The sensitive-place prohibitions on dangerous weapons set forth in this act are rooted in history and tradition. They are analogous to historical laws that can be found from the Founding era to Reconstruction, which are also found in modern laws in many states. History and tradition support at least the following location-based restrictions on carrying firearms:

In standard infringer methods they list NO laws from that time that support sensitive places. They then proceed to list all of the places which they are declaring to be gun free zones.

  • Places that are the site of core constitutional activity
  • Schools
  • Parks, recreation spaces, any place where children congregate (think under 18)
  • Any place where there are “vulnerable classes of people”
  • Any place that alcohol is sold
  • An place where “large” groups of people congregate
  • Places where volatile conditions may pose a threat to public safety
  • transportation and public infrastructure
  • Private property without consent of the property owner (This means that renters might not have the right to have guns in their own home)

There is a wealth of hoops that a permit applicant must jump through before they might be given government permission to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution. Training, permission to purchase, universal background checks, 4 references that are not related and on and on and on.

NJ Bill S3214 2022-2023

Friday Feedback

Merry Christmas to you all!

If you know somebody that is alone this Christmas season, make sure you reach out to them to let them know that they are not truly alone.

For those serving that are away this Christmas season, I wish you safe travels and hope you find you way home soon.

We have a number of suggestions, I’m going to go through my inbox again this weekend and move them all into my keep so that they are right there when I go to right. Thank you.

We also have an article from a reader/contributor that needs to be published. My responsibility, I’ll attempt to get that out soon.

Is there any articles you particularly enjoyed this week? Is there any particular subject that needed more attention?

On a personal query, did anybody besides me read my long article How States are arguing 2A cases post Bruen? Did it meet your expectations?

NY CCIA challenge at SCOTUS

We’ve been following a couple of cases in NY state regarding their CCIA law(s) where the state immediately post Bruen created a set of requirements that turned NYS from “May Issue” to “Shall Issue, but you can’t carry anywhere”.

This case was first heard by United States District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby. Judge Suddaby said that the CCIA looked bad to him but that the people suing in the lawsuit did not have standing.

GOA et all went back and got more plaintiffs to join in the suit and refiled. The state attempted to have the case assigned to a different judge. Judge Suddaby said “NO”. Took the case back.

The plaintiffs requested a temporary injunction to block the CCIA. Judge Suddaby granted the temporary injunction but held it for three days for the state to appeal. The second circuit court vacated the temporary injunction.

A short time later Judge Suddaby granted an injunction blocking parts of the CCIA. This time he did NOT hold it to allow the state to appeal.

An injunction is granted when the judge feels that the case will win on the merits. I.e. there is no evidence that needs to be presented in order for the person requesting the injunction to win.

The state, as expected, appealed to the second circuit which again overturned Judge Suddaby’s injunction.

At this point no more progress can be made on the case until the second circuit court hears the appeal. This could be next week or it could be next year or it could be years from now. It is a good bet that the second circuit would love to push it out as far as possible.

At this point the GOA threw a monkey wrench into the shinagagins of the second circuit and the state of New York.

TO THE HONORABLE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT:

Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts.

his Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later,
New York Governor Hochul promised to “fight back”:

We just received some disturbing news … the Supreme Court … has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens … with a decision … which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation…. This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of … what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state…. [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can … because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court…. We’ve been ready for this … We’ve been working with a team of legal experts … I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session… We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court…. No longer can we strike the balance… Shocking. They have taken away our rights…. This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back…. I’m prepared to go back to muskets…. We’re just getting started here.

Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.

First, without providing any analysis of the factors for determining whether a stay is warranted, the panel nakedly asserted that it had “weighed the applicable factors … and … upon due consideration … conclude[d] that a stay pending appeal is warranted.” App.002a. Tellingly, the Second Circuit did not take issue with a single factual finding or legal conclusion from the district court’s well-reasoned 184-page opinion. Nor did the Second Circuit claim that the district court had abused its discretion or otherwise erred in any part of its opinion granting Applicants preliminary relief. The Second Circuit’s unexplained and unsupported order deprives Applicants of the “careful review and a meaningful decision” to which they are “entitle[d].” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009).

The CCIA stands in direct defiance to Bruen’s central holding that governments cannot keep “ordinary, law-abiding citizen[s]” with “ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose.” Bruen at 2150. The Second Circuit’s stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction allows New York’s novel, anti-Bruen law to strip New Yorkers of their right to keep and bear arms in a sweeping and unprecedented way, along with the collateral damage of violating multiple other constitutional provisions. Applicants, along with countless others like them, are being irreparably harmed each day this patently unconstitutional law remains in place, eviscerating the right of ordinary, law-abiding New Yorkers to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Additionally, this case presents issues of national importance with respect to states that enact laws in explicit defiance of this Court’s decisions.

Nor does the district court’s opinion represent an outlier, as its decision is not the only one striking down portions of the CCIA as unconstitutional. Rather, there have been a total of three opinions issued by district courts in New York concluding that various aspects of the CCIA are unconstitutional. Yet as in this case, the Second Circuit has granted stays pending appeal in those other cases as well – again, without providing any reasoning or analysis. See Christian, et al. v. Nigrelli, et al. (2d Cir. 22-2987, Document 40); Hardaway, et al. v. Nigrelli, et al. (2d Cir. 22-2933, Document 53). One might think that the Second Circuit – being the circuit whose opinion was recently reversed by this Court in Bruen (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Beach, 818 Fed. Appx. 99 (2d Cir. 2020)) – might find it appropriate to at least provide some basis for its decision to stay multiple lower court decisions which have faithfully applied the Bruen framework. But one would be wrong.

This Court should vacate the Second Circuit’s unreasoned, knee-jerk order granting a stay pending appeal.

This is addressed to Justice Sotomayor because she is the judge assigned to oversee the second circuit court. This will not be seen by just her but by all of the justices.

The second circuit court issuing a “stay pending appeal” is what got them in trouble. I believe that this renders any decision by Judge Suddaby moot pending that appeal being heard by the second circuit. Because the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that “a right delayed is a right denied” this appeal to SCOTUS is likely to be noticed and acted upon.

Of interest, there is no need for oral arguments or anything else on this sort of appeal. The Supreme Court can issue their decision on this request at anytime. Like tomorrow, if they want to.

Related proceedings are:

  • Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-CV-0986 (GTS/CFH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022) (order granting preliminary injunction).
  • Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 22-2908 (2d Cir. Dec. 7, 2022) (order staying preliminary injunction).

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AND TO VACATE STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Clean Brass ready For Shipping

Our Grand Leader put out a request for help. He needed some primers. The problem is that a few years ago the feds changed the shipping rules on HAZMAT.

Primers qualify as HAZMAT. In order to ship HAZMAT you must take your package to a “HUB”, UPS or FedEx and do all the right paperwork. This paperwork includes your license to ship HAZMAT. What? You don’t have one of those?

That’s right, us normals can’t ship primers any more.

Anyway, I contacted our Grand Leader and after talking about what he needs I discovered that he was in need of some .45ACP to reload. Since primers are HAZMAT I couldn’t just ship him a $10 tray. Instead I have to put the primers in cases and ship the primed cases. Which are not considered HAZMAT.

Since I have some spare (sort of) .45 ACP I went to the wall of shame, I.e. Dirty cases, and pulled down some .45 ACP. It was ugly as sin.

So I decided to clean the brass again before priming and shipping. And I wanted SHINY brass, like new.

Tray of dirty .45 ACP

These and a bunch of other brass went into my ball mill for processing.

Ball Mill

I use stainless steel pins as media. The first tumble is for 45 minutes with media and Dawn liquid dish soap. Be careful not to use to much Dawn as it does suds up.

About 5 to 10 minutes into the first tumble the drive belt broke. The replacement material arrived today. It is a little painful as you have to make your own belts from the material. It took 3 or 4 tries before I got it exactly right.

So 3 or 4 days after I put the brass into the water the tumble started and ran to completion.

The water in the drum is then poured out. I pour it into a bowl to catch any media or brass that might escape. Everything is rinsed two or three times and then just enough water to cover the brass and media is added.

One small squirt of Dawn and about a table spoon of LemiShine. Then the brass tumbles for another 45 minutes.

This is what went in:

.38 Special before wet tumble cleaning

This is what came out after priming:

.38 Special after wet tumble cleaning

Here are the cases ready for our Grand Leader:

All that remains is to pack them and ship them which will happen tomorrow.

It is all about destroying western civilization

I’m a firm believer in climate change. The climate changes. FULL STOP.

How much of the current change in climate is the direct result of human actions? That’s a different question. I remember reading about the changes in climate post 9/11. With so much air travel stopped and so many people just not driving there was a measurable change in temperatures/climate.

While the doomsayers claim the damage is not reversible, the measurements after 9/11 suggest that it is reversible and without much real effort. I don’t know.

I use to follow the science of “climate change” a bit more closely. I longer do. Part of the issue is that there is so much political capital invested in climate change that I do not believe that it is possible to get balanced answers.

When they say “follow the science” don’t forget to also “follow the money.”

Years ago I did some work for a part of NOAA. One of the things that we were doing was digitizing all of the old weather records. These were hand written records going back a hundred years. All of these were being manually entered into the system to be processed.

What we observed was that the temperatures were about the same a 100 years ago vs what we were seeing at that time, mid 1980s. We were looking because there was a huge concern that the next ice age was overdue and we should expect the glaciers to be advancing south from Canada in day.

In the 1970’s I read an article in Popular Science that said that scientist were considering shooting rockets over the poles in order to disburse a fine powder of carbon which would absorb heat from the sun in order to stop the ice age.

A few years later it was “global warming” which was the problem. The temperatures were rising and the world as we know it was going to end because the temperature was going up.

When it didn’t happen as predicted the words changed to “climate change”. This is sort of like talking about “carbon footprint” or “reducing carbon emissions”. The reason it is bad language is that “carbon emissions” they are talking about are actually CO2 emissions. People do remember the days of horrible air pollution.

They remember the filth of London from all the coal burning stoves that put real carbon into the air. Carbon that turned things black. People know that carbon is black and dirty and hard to clean up. Anybody that has ever had to clean a camp pot knows the black carbon film a campfire leaves behind.

So when people hear “carbon emissions” they don’t think of an odorless, tasteless, clear gas, they think of the smoke spewing chimmies of times gone past.

“Climate Change” is such a magical term. If you don’t agree that man is causing horrible changes to the climate of the earth you are a “climate denier”. If the summer is hotter than last year it is proof of climate change. If the summer is cooler than last year it is proof of climate change.

There is no way to disprove the climate change position which makes it pseudo science, at best.

Recently there was a breakthrough in nuclear fusion studies.

On Tuesday [Dec 6, 2022], the head of the Department of Energy and other federal scientific leaders announced that a fusion reaction they ran at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California achieved net energy, meaning the reaction generated more energy than was put in to initiate the reaction. It’s the first time humankind has achieved this landmark.
–CNBC

This is a huge breakthrough. They pumped in two megajoules of energy and three megajoules came out. While there have been a number of announcements in the past saying somebody had gotten fusion to work, most of the time the amount of measured energy was so small as to possibly (likely) be a measurement error rather than actual fusion.

To think of this we need to understand some units. A Joule is a measure of Energy. The average American household consumes around 29.5 kWh per day. This is around 106.3MJ

They dumped in a half hour worth of Energy use and got out 45 minutes worth of energy.

This is wonderful news. This is a true breakthrough. Yes, I’m repeating myself. Now that they have accomplished this, multiple times, and it looks like other groups should be able to reproduce, they can start work on making this all work in a smaller package.

This is a step towards large amounts of power available for much lower costs. My Grandkids will likely see the first nuclear fusion power generators dumping power into the grid. Depending on a number of things these fusion reactors might even become small enough to putt in a house or maybe power trains or trucks or at some point, even cars.

Absolutely amazing.

So the left is celebrating. If this works as it should this should end our dependence on fossil fuels for powering modern society.

This article goes on to say that they have heard it all before and it is likely just the same old hype without any real path to success. Even if it did work it is years away from commercial power plants using fusion.

“Here, scientists are clear. Fusion power will not arrive in time to save the world.”

The only path that is ever possible for these cultist is to stop using fossil fuels right now and destroy our civilization. Because… reasons…

Tuesday Tunes

Many songs tell a story. Everything from “Sink the Bismark” to “Tornado”, the songs tell a story. There are also albums that tell a story. Sometimes they are called “concept” albums.

Some of the famous ones are “Tommy” by The Who and “Peter and the Wolf”. One of my favorites is “The Ballad of Calico” by Kenny Rogers and The First Edition. Unfortunately it hasn’t been released on CD so there are only bootleg versions available.

The digital copies I made from my LPs have gone away somewhere along the line of moving from computer to computer.

Here is a link to the complete album: The Legend of Anne Bonny

Here are two of my favorite tracks from the album:


Here is the song that Karliene turned into the complete album: