Why is this of interest in the Second Amendment

It has been litigated at the Supreme Court three times now. The right of The People to keep and bear arms is an individual right. This is shown by dictionary meanings of “to bear” and “to keep”. It makes plain sense.

It is also a plain reading of the text.

The infringers want our right to self-defense to be restricted. Horribly restricted.

The easiest way to do that is to get rid of that nasty old pest, the Second Amendment.

How they do that is to attempt to make things “not arms”. They are failing. They attempt to make it not apply in this particular location. That is being challenged and they expect to lose.

They are also attempting to redefine what “The People” means to exclude most, or at least make the process of becoming a member of “The People” a matter for the state. In other words, the state wants “The People” to mean only law-abiding, responsible citizens, as defined by them.

There is another attack vector they are using. They want the Second Amendment to be a collective right, granted to the organized militia controlled by the state.

The path they are using is corpus linguistics. The gist of which is they take all the written works from that culture, as defined by location and time, and create a “normal” meaning.

Since the term “bear arms” appears primarily in the context of armies and militias, the state, and their amicus, claim that “to keep and bear arms” exists only in the context of the Militia.

Let’s take a modern version of this. The workword “Fuck”.

To fuck has a dictionary meaning of “have sex with someone” or “an act or instance of having sex.”

If we were to collect all the uses of the word “fuck” in the United States for over the last decade (or more) we would find a different “normal” meaning. That would be more of a word of contempt, “fuck you”. Or of annoyance, “Fuck it”. Or, as just a way of adding emphasis, “clean your fucking room.”

The Supreme Court isn’t stupid. They saw through this the last time it was brought forward, and many times before.

That never stops the infringers. When we are all dead and gone, if there is still a protected right to keep and bear arms, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be infringers out there making the same tired arguments.

My son is on the spectrum. His idea of fun is computer games. On the great side of it, he has decided that he is going into the trades. I couldn’t be prouder of him.

His sibling has given me tunes for Tuesdays, as has his mother. Today I asked for his.

He gave me four. Two are cartoon—like singing. I can’t handle it, and I won’t inflict it on you.

His third choice was:

I happen to prefer the choir version:

His last was labeled “American”. It is a song I happen to like. It depends on whether it was “The War of Northern Aggression” or “The Civil War” or “the war to free the slaves”.

My truck is a mess. I try to keep the front in “ok” but the space behind the driver’s seat is reserved for preparedness.

This is the “always” things:

• US Military Sleep System.
• US Military poncho liner.
• US Military entrenching shovel
• US MRE’s, not visible, in the door behind the lens
• Blowout First Aid Kit
• Boo-Book First Aid Kit (Red)
• Bottled water.

To this is added the travel bag, a 72-hour pack, when I leave my local AO. That includes my spare boonie hat, a watch cap, another IFAK/blowout+, MRE(1), water filter, 1L canteen, extra ammo, socks, underwear, shirt, US Military poncho, US Military Poncho Liner, misc other stuff.

Fire starting equipment is at every level and in every kit. 440 paracord is at every level, the only thing that changes is the amount. I actually made a belt from paracord. 150 ft of paracord around my waist and it looks like a regular belt.

There are pocket knives everywhere, Gerber multi-tools in most of the EDCs. A nice Cold Steel folding lock blade.

The briefcase is a bit more and besides carrying my laptop it carries a full EDC set. In that one, I have flavored tuna packets. They can be eaten as is or spread on crackers or bread if you have it.

I have Ka-Bar sporks in most gear. The number of times that has been helpful is surprising.

Regardless, start putting together some supplies “just in case”. There are $100s of dollars in my EDC kits, not counting the firearms. I certainly didn’t go out and buy it all at once. It just keeps growing as I find things that work for me/us.

B.L.U.F.
A look at an early 20th century firearm regulation.
(700 words)

I Am Not A Lawyer. I’ve never taken a prelaw course, I’ve never attended a Law School. My interactions with lawyers have been few and far between. What I am is a geek that enjoys understanding. I will often spend far too much time figuring something out that I will never use again. Until I need it.

In looking at the history of firearm regulation, the first federal firearm regulation is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was my understanding that the next major firearms regulation was the Gun Control Act of 1968. This was followed by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act in 1985, The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994(AWB) and a few others since then.

At the state level, there were few from 1791 through the 1850s. The first real infringements on the state level happened after the War of Northern Aggression. The first major state level bill was New York’s Sullivan Act of 1911.

I completely missed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

Because Robert Spitzer cited the Federal Firearms Act, I became aware of it. I found the original text.

Constitutional Basis For the Infringement

Read More

Form 4473 is the federal background check paperwork and firearm registration form used by the ATF to make sure you are not a prohibited person and to create a registry. This came into existence in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. —Wikipedia: Corpus linguistics (Jan. 2023)

Correction: Form 4473 came into existence with the GCA of 1968. Which is what my muddled brain remembered. The NICS came into existence with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. My apologies

Out in California, they are currently litigating the background check requirement for the purchase of ammunition.

Something interesting hit me as I was talking about yesterday’s article with my wife. If placing a burden on the purchase of ammunition is conduct protected by the Second Amendment, and there were no regulations for background checks until 1993, does that mean there is no history or tradition of background checks?

With multiple cases moving towards the Supreme Court or all ready there challenging parts of §922(g), will we see §921 fall as well?

4473s are a small rape as compared to states being designated sensitive places and requiring The People to prove they are law-abiding, responsible citizens before being granted permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

I can’t see 2A groups pushing an attack on §921. It is a fascinating thought experiment.

What current laws or regulations in your state would you like to see challenged?

I’m old enough to remember the events. I remember the Feds telling us that there were no federal snipers pointing guns at the defenders. It was just such a shock to see gun sight camera images of those snipers. I mean, they were clear, and I didn’t know that it was possible with the tech of that time.

There was the follow-on standoff. I did watch the state’s video of the ambush and the death of the one protester.

I was asked to write about that saga. To look into the court cases.

It is unlikely to happen. It falls into the same category of research as Ruby Ridge cases, and the Branch Dividians. Interesting, but a boat load of research that I do not have the resources at the current time.

If somebody wants to send me courts and case numbers, I’ll look into it. My research last night didn’t pop anything except anger at the Wikipedia page.

B.L.U.F.This case is before Judge Benitez. I believe he has a hearing scheduled for mid-September on the merits of the case. In response to the defendants (bad guys/state) whining that the case should be evaluated through the eyes of an expert or historian. Judge Benitez ordered the defendants to declare their experts and to allow the plaintiffs (good guys) the opportunity to dispose them.

The state went back to the well of Spitzer and Vorenberg for another set of declarations. They added Jennifer M McCutchen to the list of infringement loving experts as well.

(2300 words)

Who Are the Players

Jennifer M McCutchen is an Assistant Professor at the university of St. Thomas, Minnesota.

Michael Vorenberg, associate professor of history at Brown University. In his words:

We round out our merry band of word weasels with Robert Spitzer, in his words:

Robert’s Attempt at Matching

Read More