This is “the bump stock” ban case. It has been kicking around for a while.

In October 2017, there was a mass casuality event in Las Vagas, Nevada. 58 people were killed and over 500 were wounded.

When the police breached the room they believed the shots were coming from, they found a corpse, IIRC. I don’t believe the cops shot him.

They found a number of weapons, some of which were AR15 style semi-automatic rifles. They found magazines and at least one of the rifles was equiped with a bump stock.

President Trump, looking at the make up and the will of the congress told the ATF to ban bump stocks.

One version says that Trump is a traitor to the Second Amendment for doing this. Another says that Trump was playing 5D chess and kept congress from acting.

The ATF promligated a new regulation where they redefined “machinegun” to include semi-automatic firearms equiped with bump stocks as machineguns, and demanded that all owners of bump stocks turn them in within 90 days or face charges.

Mr. Cargill turned over 2 bump stocks to the ATF, under protest, then filed suit challenging the final rule as being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

This is NOT a Second Amendment challenge. This is an Administrative Act challenge. It is a claim that the ATF did not have the authority to exerciese its power the way that they did. The ATF can not change laws nor can they make laws.

The district court found for the ATF. A merits panel of the Fifth Circuit court afrimed. The case was then heard en banc where the Fifth Circuit reversed the merits panel. Note that this was a weak finding.

The Fifth Circuit en banc found that under the rule of lenity, the plaintiff, the good guy, wins.

The rule of lenity is that when the law is ambiguous, The People win.

This means that the case was appealed to the Supreme Court which granted cert and issued their opinion today.

So what did the Supreme Court actually say?

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. He answered the question put to them. Did the ATF exceed its statutory authority? The Supreme Court said they had.

With this, the ATFs rule is gone. Does this mean that we can now own bump stocks? The answer is a strong “maybe”.

If your state has banned bump stocks, those laws are still good. This opinion only affects the ATF’s Rule. It was found that the ATF did not have the authority to redifine the meaning of “machinegun.”

Even if your state’s government waved the magic pen and banned bump stocks, those bans have to be fought in court. This case is not even good case law for a state level executive ban.

This case is even weaker as case law IF your state’s legislature passed bills that were signed into law banning bump stocks.

On the good news side, Justice Thomas does a great job of describing the trigger group of an AR-15. This makes it absolutely clear that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm. This can be used to slap down the Woods and Easterbrooks of the country that find that AR-15’s aren’t even arms protected by the Second Amendment.

This is why I like originalist Justices. Justice Alito concurered. He wrote that he was agreeing with the majority because that is what the law said. He then goes on to say that if the Congress that defined what a machinegun was knew about devices like bump stocks, they would have considered a bump stock to be a machinegun.

But he says very clearly:

But the biggest take away comes not from the majority opinion, but from the minority dissent.

The dissent gives us “in common use” for semiautomatic rifles and implicitly says that AR-15s are not M-16s

Not a Second Amendment win, but a win for The People.

More later.

We are halfway through the month of begging and have not met our goals.

Please consider purchasing: 1 Month server Hosting, or 1 Month Web Services, or just a A Cup of Coffee.

J.Kb. has some items for sale there in The Shop

Yesterday was the 13th anniversary of the delivery of my machine shop. Wednesday, I was working in the shop and felt like I actually knew what I was doing.

I have a new project, making springs. This is to repair an oil can check valve. I also noticed a need for custom springs in certain objects that are dealing with reciprocating masses and loud noises.

I need to make mandrels and a wire feed device. The choices are: Blondihacks, This Old Tony, simple stupid, and simple not stupid.

My current inclination is to go with simple, not stupid. This is a cylinder with an 1/8 hole down the center almost to the end. The end is cone-shaped. The top of that cone is cut off, exposing the center drilled hole. A V notch is then cut from the end of the hole to the tip of the cone.

This is a standard design. I am going to augment this with a flat cut on the top for alignment purposes and a tensioning screw on the side. It looks like I can use brass or a brass tipped setscrew for this.

We are looking for the Supreme Court to do something on the PICA cases from Illinois soon. We are waiting for the Supreme Court to issue their opinion in Rahimi any day now.

Have a great weekend! Please let us know what you are thinking about, any stories we should have covered, and so forth.

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.
—Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Jun. 14, 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.

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.

Well, they hung my brother before I could say
The tracks he saw while on his way
To Andy's house and back that night were mine
And his cheating wife had never left town
That's one body that'll never be found
You see little sister don't miss when she aims her gun