Yesterday, I finished the machining on the toolholder bodies. I need to make 5 adjustment nuts to complete the project. This means there are four toolholders that are good to go, as is.

Comedy of Errors

I do not think there is a single toolholder that is 100% right. There is the one where the tool in the collet grabbed it and chewed on the edges.

There are the three where I cut the dovetail 0.100 too deep.

There is the fact that the adjustment stud is too close to the dove tail. There are the edges where I missed the chamfer and have a ridge where there should be none.

Which takes us to

Hot Bluing

This was so much fun, not.

The formula that I used was 13 cups of water to 4 lbs of sodium hydroxide to 2 lbs of sodium nitrate. Bring to a boil, cook each piece of metal for 30 minutes. Rinse in hot tap water and then coat with WD40 or other oil.

First, I purchased a 5 qt stainless-steel pot to do this in. The stainless-steel handles were attached to the body of the pot with aluminum rivets. This formula will eat aluminum in short order.

Which it did. The pot sprung a leak and the boiling, caustic bluing mixture went everywhere.

I have more cleanup tomorrow to recover from that mess. That stuff started eating my hot plate.

As prep for each piece going in, I first deburred them all, used air to clean them, washed them in the parts washer, used air to dry them. Then Hagar cleaned them with acetone.

I don’t think we got them clean enough. We should have used more acetone and got them 100% oil free.

After they were cleaned, they were hung from spring wire in the pot for 30 minutes. Then rinsed under hot tap water for 2 or 3 minutes.

Finally, they were sprayed down with WD40. I then used a Scotch Bright(gray) to lightly rub the flash rust from them. The results are what you see.

I think they are beautiful. They are not that deep black I was looking for. They have a sort of case-hardened look to them.

Yes, one of them is still in the white. I forgot I had three machined, so it wasn’t processed into the pot.

Next time, I will clean each part better. I believe that the aluminum might have reduced the quality of the bluing solution.

We’ve put it all in a jug for use next time. I might have to remake it, making sure not to get any aluminum in the solution.

It is amazing watching aluminum bubbling away…

matter of law

A matter of law, or question of law, is a determination of the applicable law as opposed to a matter of fact. Matter of law is seen in judgments as a matter of law where a judge makes a decision applying the relevant laws to irrefutable evidence.
—matter of law, LII / Legal Information Institute, (last visited Jun. 12, 2024)

Consider the “fruit of the poisoned tree”. Detective Billy-Bob is interrogating Jimmy. He asks Jimmy where the loot is hidden. Jimmy tells him.

At court, the defense argues that Jimmy was not afforded his constitutionally protected rights and the “confession”, the loot, the finding of the loot, and the finding of a body with the loot are all “fruit of the poisoned tree”.

As fruit of the poisoned tree, the evidence should be excluded.

This is not a question put to the jury. This is a question of law, or a matter of law. As a matter of law, it is the court’s responsibility to answer the question.

The court will evaluate the evidence and how it was acquired to determine if it should be excluded from the court.

When Jimmy was picked up, he was carrying a gun without the state’s permission. He is charged under state law of having a canceled weapon without state permission slips.

The defense, Jimmy, files a motion challenging the law requiring state permission slips to carry a gun as a facial challenge. This means that they think the law is unconstitutional in all cases. They argue, in the motion, that under Supreme Court case law, if a law or regulation implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, the individual conduct is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.

The lawyers say simply, “It involves a gun. He wants to bear it. That implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment. The state has the burden of showing a tradition of firearms regulations that is in keeping with this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulations.” (Sorry for the poor language.)

The court then issues his opinion. He is answering a matter of law. He says to the state, “The plain text is implicated. You now bear the burden to …”

The court then reads the motions, the replies, the counter replies, holds a hearing where the parties present/argue their standpoint.

The court then issues their opinion. If the court says the state failed to meet their burden, the charge is dropped. If the state met their burden, then the charge is kept.

Let’s say the court says that the law is constitutional. At trial, the state will present evidence that Jimmy was in possession of a firearm at a particular time, that he was not issued a permission slip and any other evidence they feel will convince the jury of the facts.

After both parties have presented their arguments, it is the court’s responsibility to tell the jury what facts they need to determine. After the jury has made their determinations of the matter of facts, they will mark their verdict.

So, the jury determines facts, the court determines law.

In the Hunter Bidden cast, I have not looked for the defense challenging Count III on constitutional grounds.

I have spent my adult live advocating for the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Then the Libertarian “2A absolutists” have to show up with the sorts of positions that will ruin it for everyone.

Felons should have their Second Amendment right automatically restored upon completion of their sentence. https://t.co/8BaPiJtHbA

— Kerry Slone (@thereal_SnS) June 13, 2024

Frankly, I’m fine with violent offenders not having their gun or voting rights automatically restored. Given that “Within three years of their release, two out of three former prisoners are rearrested and more than 50% are incarcerated again.”

I just can’t believe that…

“I think that convicted rapists and suicidal crack heads should be able to buy guns while lying on the background check.”

Is a winning message, or a reasonable position.

Other than taking pride in their absolutist nature, what do these people hope to accomplish?

And if this is what it takes to be “pro-gun” in today’s gun culture, I’m going buy a photographer’s vest and some white New Balance sneakers and embrace the Fudd, because I won’t be party to that.

Today I learned from the internet that I am an anti-gun boot-licking cuck, because I said you shouldn’t lie on a 4473.

Apparently, there are a lot of people on the internet that think lying to the government is just fine.

Lying to the government about information they’re not entitled to is wrong in your opinion?

— TheBilofRights (@ThePhilof) June 12, 2024

Lying to the federal government is justifiably felonious?

Like, we must tell the government everything we’re doing, when, where, and how, if the government says we have to?

That isn’t just an attack on the 2nd, but the 5th too.

— Currermell (@currermell) June 12, 2024

People shouldn’t spend time in prison for lying on a form that shouldn’t exist in the first place

I have 0 obligation to be truthful to you or anyone much less government. But I get to choose who to be truthful with. Everything we say/do has consequences, whether we live in a civilized society or not. I choose wisely who I’m truthful with and you have a right to lie.

— Batboy Supreme (@Batboy_Supreme) June 12, 2024

It is possible to think both of these things simultaneously, you might try it sometime

— Taiko Miyazawa (@tortletech) June 12, 2024

It’s our moral obligation to lie to the government, actually, especially when representation no longer exists in the country.

— Bangstickk (@johnsonstickk) June 12, 2024

I don’t know how to say this enough, under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, you absolutely have the right to remain silent and not testify against yourself.

Once you decide to tall, if you lie on a sworn statement, you are guilty of perjury.

Your choices are stay silent or tell the truth.

Lying is not an option.

That is because the truth is a moral good.

A decent society does not encourage mendacity.

Our Founding Fathers were moral men. They wanted to protect people from tyrannical government, so they enshrined the right to remain silent.

They didn’t give us the right to bullshit the government.

These are two fundamentally different things.

Yet the internet is full of fucking retards who can’t differentiate that.

Then there is this retarded ass take.

Illegal laws should not be obeyed

— Matt King (@BubbleVapor2) June 12, 2024

you don’t have to obey an unconstitutional law, and enforcing an unconstitutional law is a crime

— Sinister Silverado (@SinisterSilver2) June 12, 2024

You missed the point completely. You’re literally saying that if a legal requirement isn’t met because it’s a gateway to exercising your 2A right, then you are the problem. Every law, form, regulation, or ordinance that hinders my right to a firearm is an infringement. Period.

— Batboy Supreme (@Batboy_Supreme) June 12, 2024

I don’t know who told these people, “If you think a law is illegal or unconstitutional, you don’t have to obey it.”

Because, that’s not how that works.

It’s the Supreme Court, not internet fuckoff randos, who decide Constitutionality.

The Supreme Court upheld the 4473 in Bruen. They struck down part of it, but upheld the rest.

So, as of right now, the 4473 has passed Constitutional muster.

I’m completely against licenses to possess guns, like the FOID and FID.

But because the Supreme Court hasn’t struck them down yet, yes, I got a FOID.

According to these chest thumpers, wanting to stay out of prison is loving the taste of fed boot polish.

Maybe I am a Fudd, but I come from a principle of, “Be a law abiding gun owner and work to change the law.”

Heller, DC, Moore v Madigan, Bruen, were all decided in my adult lifetime. I watched as more than half the states in the union went Constitutional Carry.

These are great advancements, and we should and will fight for more.

The “I’m not going to comply with anything I disagree with, and law abiding gun owners are boot-licking cucks,” doesn’t advance our case and just plain fucking retarded.

I only hope all these retards stand by their principles and refuse to comply with the laws they disagree with and lie to the government about it. Let them risk the virginity of their assholes in a federal penitentiary for their chest thumping.

So says Shannon Watts, so it must be true.  Georgia enacted Permitless Carry in 2022.

Then, how would she explain this?

That was the result of a 5 second search.

If your cause is righteous, why lie?

I have seen a number of people gun people on Twitter take an utterly ridiculous and retarded position on the Hunter Biden conviction.

If you support Dexter Taylor, while celebrating Hunter Biden being convicted, you’re not pro-2A.

“Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.”
-Judge Abena Darkeh#IStandWithDexterTaylor pic.twitter.com/PU74BURGhr

— Kerry Slone (@thereal_SnS) June 12, 2024

Some of you are not as pro-gun as you claim to be. If you support gun control against your political opponents, you are an enemy of the Second Amendment. Being pro-gun and anti-gun control means being a Second Amendment absolutist, which transcends political ideology and party…

— ?UR a Smart Ass, Carl? (@Ur_a_Smartass_C) June 12, 2024

I am disappointed in the shortsightedness of the 2A community in the Hunter Biden case. Remove political partisanship from the equation, you don’t have to like Hunter Biden. Hell I don’t obviously. But this is a chance to further prove the unconstitutionally of the 4473.

— Iraqveteran8888 (@Iraqveteran8888) June 10, 2024

Readers of this blog should be aware by now that I’m a stalwart defender of the the Second Amendment.

The Hunter Biden conviction is not a Second Amendment issue.

Let’s be clear exactly what Hunter Biden was convicted of:

The charges: The first two counts were for lying about his drug use on a federal background check form, and the third count was for possessing a gun while addicted to, or using, illegal drugs.

I’m pretty sure everyone who is reading this post has filled out a 4473.

The relevant text is right above where you sign.

According to the ATF:

Federal law prohibits knowingly making any false statement in connection with purchasing, or attempting to purchase, a firearm. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) requires prospective firearm buyers to complete ATF Form 4473. This Form requires buyers to answer several questions, including those about the buyer’s competency, criminal history, drug use, immigration status, and history with domestic violence. Applicants who knowingly make false statements may also face criminal prosecution for a felony and up to 10 years in federal prison.

A 4473 is a federal document. It is an affidavit.

This is advice directly from a attorney’s website:

Lying on Government Forms and Documents: Don’t Do It! It’s Illegal

First and foremost, providing false information on government forms or documents is illegal. It’s considered fraud, forgery, perjury, or making false statements, depending on the specifics. There are laws at both the state and federal levels that prohibit lying or falsifying information on government paperwork. For example, in Illinois, lying on an official document can be considered perjury and prosecuted as such.

Some common situations where people may be tempted to fudge the truth include:

• Filing taxes and falsely claiming deductions or exemptions
• Applying for government benefits like welfare or food stamps and not reporting income
• Filling out the FAFSA form for student aid and leaving off assets
• Lying on a resume or application when applying for a government job
• Providing false information when applying for a business loan or grant from the government
• Lying on immigration paperwork about your reasons for visiting or moving to the country

This is important.

The major charges against Hunter were that he lied on a federal document.

You can hate the Gun Control Act of 1968 and believe that the 4473 is unconstitutional, but that does not negate that fact that lying on a federal form and lying on an affidavit is a crime.

In the first posted Tweet, I’ve covered the travesty of justice that is the conviction of Dexter Taylor. Taylor made guns for fun as a machinist. He was convicted of violating New York’s ghost gun ban and assault weapons ban.

He’s a 2A martyr. He simply made and owned items that New York, unconstitutionally, decided he shouldn’t have.

If Hunter cut a shotgun down to 17.9 inches instead of 18, and accidentally violated the (unconstitutional) NFA, with no malicious intent, I’d agree that would make him a 2A martyr.

Had he crossed into another state with a CCW that didn’t recognize reciprocity, I’d say he was a 2A martyr.

All of those, and many more are issues of gun rights.

Lying on a federal form and affidavit is not a gun rights issue.

This is about equal application of the law.

Bruen struck down part of the 4473 as unconstitutional. It upheld the rest as constitutional.

To maintain intellectual consistency, the pro-gun people who believe it is right for Hunter to lie on a federal form because they disagree with it must support every illegal who lies on an asylum application because those people disagree with immigration restrictions.

Now we’re on the slippery slope of every person who doesn’t like a law thinks they have the moral right to break it, and we become a (more) lawless society.

Our system allows the law to be changed. Challenge the GCA before the court. Lobby politicians. Run for office. Vote.

Don’t break the law.

This isn’t a 2A issue and making to make it into one is stupid.

Having been following actual court cases for the last couple of years, I’ve figured out a few minor things.

One of the most important things is that most of the work in a court case is done outside the courtroom and before the first argument is uttered.

In the United States, a court can only hear a case where there is an active dispute. Each person involved in the case has a part to play.

When the case is heard, the rules will be interpreted and enforced by the judge. His job is to control what evidence is presented.

It is then the task of the jury to evaluate that evidence to determine the “truthfulness” of each piece of evidence, then to evaluate if that evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

Which takes us to jury instructions. The jury instructions are the point at which the judge informs the jury of how to evaluate the evidence presented and what it takes to prove a charge.

There are only three elements that the jury is determining in count I. The parties stipulated that the seller was an FFL.

The second element is whether Hunter Biden was lied about being an Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? — Form 4473 Q21(f). If the jury believes that Hunter was doing crack at the time he filled out the 4473, then he made a false statement.

The third element is whether Hunter knew he was lying. Yeah, that’s an easy one.

The fourth element asks if the lie was done to deceive the seller into selling the firearm in violation of 922(g).

The judge clarifies that the statement is “false” if it was untrue when it was made.

Count I is lying to the FFL. Count II is lying on the 4473. They are the same instructions but worded slightly differently.

Count III is of more interest to us:

There is no mention in this set of instructions to consider if §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional. That question is a legal question and would be answered by the judge.

The parties stipulated to the firearm traveling across state lines.

Here is the unanimity section.

This is where Donald Trump was screwed in the jury instructions. Here, the court states that the jury must agree unanimously that Hunter was an unlawful user of a controlled substance, OR the jury must agree unanimously that he was addicted to a controlled substance.

If they agree unanimously that he is an unlawful user AND addicted to a controlled substance, then he is both.

In the Trump jury instructions, the court said that there was no need to unanimously agree on a predicate crime. The jury just had to agree, unanimously, that there was A predict crime.

The jury found Hunter Bidden guilty of all three counts.