New Glass

We are being invaded by squirrels. They are eating the bird food. Wife has declared war on the damn things.

I have four scopes. They range in age from 30 years old to “who the heck knows?” One came on the M1. It is a fixed four power. It is currently dismounted. The scope on the Rem. 700 is a beautiful Nikon scope, but that is not moving. The “varmint” scope that I picked up to go on a flat top AR-15 from the 1990s is a cheap one. There was another scope which I pulled off a donated .22.

I started with the donated scope. It was OK, but I did not like it. I switched to the varmint scope. That sort of worked. I had to put a 20MOA base under it and then managed to foobar things.

As I’ve said, I normally use iron sights. I’ve got red dots which are all co-registered with the backup up iron sights. And I have that Rem. 700 that was sighted in 30 years ago at 100 yards and just works.

What I ended up doing is messing things up badly. When the target is at the exact correct distance, then the varmint scope put round after round through the same hole exactly where I was aiming.

On the other hand, if the distance was anything other than that “correct” distance, the point of aim and point of impact were way off. All of this is because the scope is 2 inches above the bore.

Now, this scope has a very delicate and precise point of aim. It is a small, very small, dot in the center held there by two very fine crosshairs. The crosshairs are so fine it is difficult to see them. The center dot is very small too. And there is a muddiness to the image that bothers me.

I bought a cheap scope. Vortex Optics Crossfire II Second Focal Plane, 1-inch Tube Rifle scope.

First, it is much shorter than the other scopes. Second, the objective is 40 mm vs something smaller on the varmint scope. Third, it is freaking clear. It is only a 3-9×40, while the varmint was 8-32. I had the varmint at 8x, while I’m running the Vortex at 5x.

I purchased the “Dead-Hold BDC” This gives me hash marks on the crosshairs. This allows me to easily figure out my hold based on distance.

The turrets are cleaner and feel nicer to the touch.

And for those that suggested that bore sighting with that cheap-ass laser wouldn’t work well, the first rounds were on paper, 0.5 inches right of point of aim. The elevation was spot on. I made the adjustment for windage and then proceeded to put 10 rounds through a dime size hole.

The other big thing I noticed is the speed of target accusation. With the old scope, I would spot my target, shoulder the rifle, then spend time searching for the target.

With this new scope, I shoulder the rifle and everything just lines up. The target is in the center of the crosshairs.

If you have been considering a low-cost rifle scope, check the Vortex out. Make sure you get the right reticle for you.

Spread the love

Friday Feedback

It has been a good week in the courts. There are a couple of cases at the trial stage at the District level. There are still more cases about to be heard at the Circuit level.

I’m just waiting for some of those to drop.

I’m also waiting for a ruling from Judge Benitez, that should happen sometime soon. It sometimes feels that he is the one who kicked the hornets nest and got Bruen under way.

I’ll have a report about some new glass. What a huge difference 30 years makes.

Have at it in the comments.

Spread the love

Newsom’s 28th Amendment

In George Orwell’s magnum opus, 1984, The Party said:

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

These phrases were so transparently wrong that anyone would believe them was the point.  They demonstrated the level of brainwashing the citizens of Oceania had been subject to.

It’s in that spirit of dishonesty that Gavin Newsom launched his initiative to ratify the 28th Amendment.


Here is the text in full:

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis.

The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.

The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

Gun safety freedoms that restrict gun rights.  Thats orwellian.

This would be the second time the Constitution was used to restrict the rights of the people and expand the power pf the government over them.  The last was the 18th Amendment, which imposed prohibition.

That was an utter disaster that created America’s greatest crime wave and set in motion a long history of gun control.

Had it not been for the Roaring 20s, brought on by prohibition, the NFA might never had been passed.

Newsom want to impose prohibition on “assault weapons,” a nebulous and meaninglessness term.  Just image the crime wave that will cause.

And, of course, he makes the ludicrous claim that these restrictions don’t impose on the Second Amendment.  Clearly his interpretation of the Second Amendment is not one of personal gun rights.

The good news is more than half the states in America are now Constitutional carry and it takes 2/3-rds of states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.  The likelihood a Constitutional carry state will pass this is virtually zero.

He must know this has no chance of passing.

This is just the ultimate display of anti-guj virtue signaling.

Fuck him.


Spread the love

A “new” argument

B.L.U.F. The “new” argument from the state.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court issued their first Second Amendment ruling in nearly 80 years. They were asked …whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837, 2788 (2008) The District of Columbia generally prohibited the possession of handguns.

The law was set up such that each of the pieces was individually “acceptable” before the Court’s opinion. There was a law making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Then the limits on who could register a handgun were such that almost nobody was ever allowed to register a firearm.

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
id. at 2791

This defines what an “arm” is. The Heller Court went on to say:

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XIII, § 6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

This says that arms protected by the Second Amendment include both those “most useful for military/militia use” and those arms which are not. If it is an arm, it is protected by the Second Amendment.

From this place, the court then put limits on the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment. These were dangerous and unusual arms and NFA items. The NFA is not mentioned by name.

The court was exceptionally clear regarding “muskets are the only arms protected by the Second Amendment”. Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.…id.

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
id. at 2801

Yeah, it is an individual right.

Here is the crux of the post Heller battle for gun rights:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874).
id. at 2817

This is what every infringing legislature hangs their argument on. This is the hook that will allow their particular infringement to slip past the protections of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, Heller went on to say “text, history, and tradition” are the actual methods of judging a regulation.

I often wonder how the anti-gun people get their marching orders so quickly. And why they are so lock step with one another. I just found one of the reasons:

Justice BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 2852. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
id. at 2821

This is the Heller court rejecting means-end balancing. Means-end balancing comes from the dissenting opinions. In other words, from the argument that lost.

Bruen reaffirmed Heller and put a stop to means-end. This reduced the process of analyzing a Second Amendment challenge to a regulation to the following steps:

Does the challenged regulation implicate the scope of the Second Amendment? If it does not implicate the scope of the Second Amendment, the challenge loses.

Is the regulation a ban? If the regulation is a ban, are the arms banned in common use for lawful purposes? If the answer is yes, then the ban is unconstitutional.

If the regulation is not a ban, but does implicate the scope of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the state to prove a history and tradition of analogous regulations.

The state argues that their infringement does not implicate the Second Amendment. That is easily overcome.

The state argues that their infringement does not implicate an arm. Here, the state attempts to place the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the item(s) in question are, indeed, arms.

If the infringement is a ban, the state then argues that the arm is not “in common use”. They try to limit the definition of “use” by putting qualifiers, “for self-defense” being the most commonly used manipulation.

The new argument

evidence in the record before this Court. Their showing is marked by argument without citations and sources showing that their argument would be supported by admissible evidence, even under the relaxed rules for preliminary injunctions. It is wholly unclear whether all of the weapons (like conversion kits or semiautomatic pistols) regulated by HB 1240 are “in common use” based on the Plaintiffs’ scant submission. The Plaintiffs have not made “a clear showing” of evidence (Winter at 22) that supports their contention that all of the weapons covered by HB 1240 are “in common use” and therefore not “unusual” (Heller at 626).
Hartford v. Ferguson, No. 3:23-cv-05364, slip op. at 6 (District Court, W.D. Washington),

Emphasis in original.

There is no evidence that an “assault weapon” is in common use for lawful purposes?

The court is taking the side of the state here. They contend that because there is no legal evidence that hundreds of thousands of “assault weapons” are in common use, the plaintiffs have not met their burden.

I’m not exactly sure how you provide evidence that there are millions of “assault weapons” in common use. The court is unlikely to accept surveys as “evidence”. Nor are they likely to accept sales records. The court is bending over to say “well, most, if not all, of those guns were sold to law enforcement”.

They also ignore Caetano where the Supreme Court didn’t bother with figuring out exactly how many stun guns are out there. How many were owned per person.

The state has gotten this court to say that it requires that all “assault weapons” be in use for lawful purposes.

This one paragraph by the court stopped me in my tracks. They are working overtime to keep these laws from being overturned.

The reason this is important to us, is that this is not the only court that is using this to uphold infringements.

Spread the love

Non-Violent Felons to recover and keep Gun Rights.

June 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 11-4 ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest defeat for gun control laws in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.

The decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by a Pennsylvania man, Bryan Range, who was barred under federal law from possessing a gun after pleading guilty to welfare fraud. He claimed the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

US cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from owning guns-appeals court | Reuters

This is monumental. I have been a supporter of allowing Non-violent felons for a long while now and besides the obvious rectification of Civil Rights violations, the cascade of crap that is sure to come and bathe government and Liberals is to be put on Pay-Per-View.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws, declined to comment.

I believe they will do their hardest to appeal and hopefully they will lose big time. Now just imagine the herculean labor that will represent to clear federal databases of non-violent felons or be subjected to massive quantities of lawsuits for violations of civil rights by the millions of individuals who were not able to complete a NICS checks because of some petty shit taken to Felony by local or federal governments. And that is not all: Anybody (a minority for sure) who got indicted/prosecuted/incarcerated for trying to buy a gun while being a non-violent felon may have a chance to sue the government for not only violating Civil Rights but costs, loss of income and wrongful imprisonment may be added to the legal cauldron.

It would be a cataclysmic legal clusterflock. This may end up clogging the ATF and the FBI for decades…which overall, does not seem like a bad idea after all.

Here is to it happening.

Spread the love