For those of you that don’t know, Paul Clement is the super star lawyer that just won NYSR&PA, Inc v. Bruen. He has been around for a long time fighting for conservative ideals on a constitutional basis.

He fought to “remove immigration protections from so-called Dreamers”.

The firm he use to be with was Kirkland & Ellis. After today’s SCOTUS announcement, Kirkland & Ellis issued a statement that they will no longer represent clients in Second Amendment matters.

It sounds like Clement heard this or knew this was going to happen so he and a former Kirkland partner, Erin Murphy, left to form their own firm.

This guy has been fighting woke culture and the gun rights infringers for a very long time. He left his prior firm when they with drew from a case involving same sex marriage.

I’m glad he is still here with us, fighting the good fight.

Bloomberg Law: Clement to Open Boutique After Kirkland Withdraws From Guns

I hope you have all seen the cake analogy of gun rights. Where compromise always consists of us giving up some more of our gun rights in return for keeping some of ours. We never seem to get any back.

Beto O’Rourke is out there talking about “Finding Common Ground.” The democrat talking point is “balancing responsible gun ownership with public safety”.

All of them consist of ignoring just a little bit of the second amendment “for the common good”, “for public safety”, “to save just one life”.

My state has constitutional carry. I have a CCW as well. This allows me to travel to a few more states without problems as those states recognize my CCW. When we talk about common ground, how about allowing my permit to allow me to carry in every state and D.C.?

How about we recognize that short barreled rifles were added to the NFA to keep people from avoiding the tax by claiming a pistol was a rifle? How a person can end up arrested because it was 15.99inches instead of 16.00 inches long.

How about removing suppressors from the NFA? The fact that I can buy a stainless steel suppressor for a 64mm pipe for $200 installed but it is $200 just for the tax stamp and another $600+ for the actual can?

We know that we can get suppressors down around the $30 mark because people sell “solvent traps” that can be converted into a suppressor.

Common ground? I’d love to find common ground with the gun infringers. Unfortunately there seems to be a huge gulf between us that they are unwilling to cross.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that Texas needs to find “common ground” on gun control by respecting the Second Amendment while also requiring safety measures on firearms.

O’Rourke highlighted moderate gun control measures that both Republican and Democratic residents of his state can get behind, some of which appear in a bipartisan Senate plan considered this week in light of the Uvalde shooting.

“Universal background checks, red flag laws, safe storage laws — these are things that most Texans agree with,” O’Rourke said.
—O’Rourke: Time to find ‘common ground’ on gun control

Color me surprised, a balanced article from ABC News that actually starts from a pro rights point of view.

It is the most significant case regarding the Second Amendment since the high court affirmed the right to bear arms with its 2010 decision rendering Chicago’s nearly 30-year ban on handgun ownership unconstitutional.

“There’s been a big push to get more Second Amendment cases before the courts because many people believe that the lower courts were not being faithful to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 saying that states, as well as the federal government, were restricted by the Second Amendment,” Seth Chandler, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center who teaches constitutional law, told ABC News. “The Supreme Court for the past 10 years or so has just not placed that hot-button issue on its docket. But now, with this New York State Rifle and Pistol v. Bruen case, they’ve accepted those challenges.”
— Major Second Amendment case awaiting Supreme Court decision

They actually describe Giffords Law Center as “Gun control advocates”. Amazing! I’ve read so few articles where these gun rights infringers are actually identified as advocates for gun control. Normally they are described in terms like “gun violence prevention” and “advocating for gun safety.” I’ll take this as a win.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for
self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.

This is all from the opinion PDF warning written by Thomas.

It is a relatively easy read. Go read it, enjoy the win

Update-1

On page 70 of the opinion is Justice Alito’s concurring opinion.

His opinion directly attacks the use of polls, statistics, number of shootings, mass shootings and everything else that is outside the context of the question.

“Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided…”

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

The dissent is painful to read. It starts, as Alito states, with all sorts of fear mongering. After that Breyer goes off about the court not having any discovery or evidence to support the opinion. Even though in oral arguments New York made statements that directly show that the law is infringing.

What the dissent comes down to, in my opinion, is that the states are more democratic and thus the states should be able to pass what ever laws they want in regards to firearms.

Last, I’ve called my Senator’s offices and left messages with staffers saying this opinion has dropped. That it requires the 2nd be applied with strict scrutiny and thus in order for my Senator to uphold their oath to the Constitution they must vote NO on “The Bipartisan Safer Communities act”. Left the same message with my Representatives office and accidently left it with my state Senator’s office.

I did say I had my congress critters on speed dial. Click on the wrong one when trying to contact my US Representative’s office.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would be issuing opinions on Friday of this week. Normally they issue opinions on Tuesday and Thursday. It is very unusual to have them issue opinions on a Friday.

There are two very big cases we are waiting to hear on. The first is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the opinion that will affect abortion.

The other is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc vs Bruen, the opinion on whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ application for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

The media has been pushing shootings into the headlines for months now as this case was discussed within SCOTUS. As seems always to be the case, as soon as good legislation sees the light of day in congress and is making progress we start reading about more and more shootings and suddenly we can’t talk about gun rights because of the blood of the children.

Every single time.

In the house I’ve been talking about how there are more and more articles talking about mass shootings. Mass shootings that disappear just a day or so later. Often when it turns out that it was a protected class shooting at another protected class. In the same way the weekly drum of members of protected classes in Chicago killing each other goes on and on and on without every breaking into the national news cycle.

If these opinions drop on Friday, keep your head on a swivel because it is likely to get very nasty out there. Even in my small town we’ll have a bunch of people on the town square holding up their signs telling me how horrible it is. Just west of here it will be even worse as that town is a liberal cesspool with every left wing activist from a 100 miles protesting.

I don’t expect violence around here, but I’m not going to go anywhere where there might be violence and I will have my head on a swivel. The truck is getting an extra can as well, just in case.

H/T To Divemedic’s blog

Organization is important. I’m disorganized. I can find it in my computer but outside of that I need HELP.

So I try and organize. My shop has pictures on the peg board to remind people (me) where things go when they return it to the peg board and to allow me to know that something is missing. There are things that have their place and they just live there. (3/4 inch combination wrench hangs off a bolt on the side of the mill. Two others are on the peg board.)

I’m sad to report that not all my firearms have their place. They live in safe places but not all of them have a home yet.

My reloading bench is only 3×3 so enough room for reloading but not for mess. I tried to fix this with open top bins that hang off the wall. That worked well when I had the space. Now that rack is in a different room and the new reloading room is still more disorganized.

One thing that did work for some organization was ammo cans. I had the 30Cal can full of 30-06. I had the 30Cal full of 5.56 in clips and, wait, why is that 30cal can full of soldering and electronic shit. Well this can is full of, What? It’s the first aid kit mom packed for me 40+ years ago when I headed off to collage? GRRRR.

Labels! That’s the answer.

The issue is what to label and the size of the cans/boxes. I have a big chest in the reloading room but it is always covered with “stuff” so I can’t get into it.

I finally fell on the answer, sort of by accident. Products from MTM Molded Products.

So here is a review of the products I’ve purchase of theirs.

Ammo Boxes

These are my go to for range ammo. I use different product for long term storage.

They come in different sizes depending on the caliber/size of the round. They they work well for what they are. They are compact. The only real issue is that they are noisy. They rattle in the box which may or may not be an issue for you. They come in different colors, clear like the above or solid. Most of my pistol caliber are solid black.

If you are looking for something to carry reloads to the range, yeah, use these.

They also make them for rifle calibers:

Ammo Cans

These are plastic ammo cans and this is where things start to get interesting. While the external size of these plastic can’s don’t match that of the metal cans, the insides do. These I love.

It is important to note that they make these cans in non standard sizes as well. So you can buy an ammo can that exactly fits their ammo boxes. You can get a can that holds 700 rounds of 45ACP in 7 of there ammo boxes:

I have one of these for 45ACP as the price was right on Amazon.

They have versions that hold magazines instead of their boxes. For example a can that holds 16 1911 sized mags or
another that holds 15 AR-15 mags or another that holds Glock type mags.

And this brings us to the first real issue with MTM products. Their ammo cans are not standardized. So it is possible to buy an ammo can for your 5.56 mags that is just perfect, but while the size of the box looks like their 50cal can, it isn’t. Not a big deal for loose cans, but it becomes more interesting in the tray and crate side of things.

All of these are lighter than their metal counter parts and I’ve not had a single can break on me. Not that I’m particularly hard on my ammo cans. I have no problem using them instead of metal cans. They are sealed with an O-ring which keeps dust, dirt, and water out. It is airtight as well but I wouldn’t expect them, or any ammo can, to handle being submerged at any serious depth.

Ammo Trays

And this is why I decided to use MTM products for organizing my reloading and shooting gear. Their Ammo Trays.

I’ve talked to the people at MTM and from their website they will sell you just the tray part, but they don’t consider that to be a standalone product. They expect to sell the trays with a full compliment of ammo cans.

They have trays for all of their ammo cans but not all of their specialty cans. Which is why I mentioned that the 5.56 magazine can isn’t the same size as the 50 cal can. They look close but they are not the same. It is unclear to me if they would fit. Because of this I’ve not purchased any of the magazine holding ammo cans.

Besides trays for their plastic ammo cans they make trays for metal 30 cal and metal 50 cal cans.

I have multiples of these. I have a 30 cal tray that has my low count rifle ammo. Each can is labeled with the caliber. As an example, I don’t have 1000+ rounds of 303 British. So the 303 british in this can holds all the loaded rounds of 303 in boxes as well as all of my prepared brass and my cleaned but unprocessed 303 brass.

This tray lives near the top of the stack but it is just a few seconds to move a tray and expose the tray I want. At some point I’ll build some shelves for the trays but it isn’t required.

And again, this is where there is a downside. Each tray is dsized for the ammo cans it holds. Thus the 30 cal tray doesn’t stack perfectly on the 50 cal tray even though there are only 3 50 cal cans and 4 30 cal cans. And the trays for metal cans are just a little smaller than the trays for plastic cans so they don’t stack perfectly.

They do stack, but don’t expect to build a stack 10 deep with a small on the bottom and bunch of bigs on top.

These trays are very sturdy. I’ve had no problems shelping them with full cans around the house as I had to move things.

Ammo Crates

But not all things are small enough to fit into an ammo can. Even a big 50 cal can. And MTM came up with an answer for that as well.

Their ammo crates.

They have two lines, the ACR -18 and the ACR -72. The footprint for all the -18s are the same and the footprint for the -72 are the same. So if you want them to stack you just need to pick the right series.

They are big enough to put all the parts of a reloading press in, or a bunch of reloading tools. They have great handles so they are easy to move around and again they stack. The sizes aren’t an exact match to the trays but you can stack them within reason.

If you are interested you can see their entire product line at: MTM Case-Gard but most of their product line is available on Amazon for a bit cheaper.

In a move that surprises nobody, democrat lawmakers in California are unable to understand the difference between margins and gross/net.

If somebody is making a 3% margin this means that for every $100 dollars of purchases they will net $3. The price of a good is normally set by evaluating the cost of the good plus the cost of services and facilities to deliver it.

Again, our nice $100 item. The cost of the good is how much was paid for that item. I.e. the person selling it bought 10 for $500 setting the base cost at $50/unit. There is the cost of shipping. The cost of the store itself (taxes, rent/mortgage). The cost of utilities to keep the lights and heat on. The cost of the communications and marketing. Cost of upkeep on the building and warehouses. Cost of equipment. And then the big one, labor costs.

Labor includes paying for every person that is employed. This includes everybody from the guy that cleans the floor to the CEO trying to keep his business afloat. And that adds up.

So with a 3% margin, the cost of the good is $50 + $47 leaving $3 in profit.

That profit goes to everybody that owns a part of the company and to all improvements to the company, research, development and so forth.

The problem that has happened is that the cost of the good has gone up. It is no longer $50, it is $125. Expenses have gone up, it is no longer $47, it is $80. The total cost of the goods is now $205. The company still wants its 3% so the price of the good is set at $211.

Now we have the math. Our company is sill making a 3% net on that good, but instead of taking in $3 they are taking in $6.

Multiply this by thousands of sales and the net is way up. Even though the margin has stayed the same.

With California drivers paying more than $6 for a gallon of gas and state officials deadlocked for months over how to provide relief, lawmakers in the state Assembly on Monday announced they would investigate oil companies they say are “abusing a historic situation to suck profits from Californians’ wallets.”
—California Democrats to investigate cause of high gas prices

There is no ability to look at root causes. For a democrat every problem is always greed and somebody else. They have no sense of responsibility.