B.L.U.F. The DoJ got a judge to grant a TRO against Rare Breed’s FRT-15 trigger. This might have interesting fallout with regards to the NFA and/or ATF overstepping their bounds, again.

27 CFR § 479.11

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

This is the law. Congress passed this law in 1934. The issue has always been that the final ruling on what is and is not a NFA item or a firearm has been the opinion of the ATF.

[N]either laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and … the laws must not be arbitrary.
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, “The RUle of Law in Times of Stress”(2003)

Judge Wood’s comments highlight the need for, first, an open and transparent system of making laws and, second, laws that are applied predictably and uniformly. Openness and transparency are essential. If people are unable to know and understand what the law is, they cannot be expected to follow it. At the same time, people deserve to know why a particular law has been passed and why they are being asked to obey it.

— American Bar Association “What is the rule of law”

There is a point in time where a piece of metal or a fabrication moves from being an object, a hunk of aluminum, or a piece of bent sheet metal to a frame or receiver. The point at which this happens is not know from the law. It isn’t defined. One moment the thing isn’t a firearm, the next it is.

For example, if you were to cast a piece of plastic in the shape of an AR15 lower and were then to fill in the fire control area with a different colored plastic, that thing is a firearm. It became a firearm when it became a receiver which happened when it was first shaped like an AR15 receiver. Filling it back in does not make it “not a frame or receiver” once a receiver, always a receiver until properly destroyed.

Now let’s say we reverse the process, we create a piece of plastic that is the shape of the fire control pocket and then cast another piece of plastic around that first piece of plastic, making one single piece of plastic. That is not a receiver when the ATF was asked.

How about if the fire control pocket is orange and the exterior is black plastic? Ummm, that MIGHT be a receiver. How about if the fire control pocket had pins in the places where you drill the holes for the selector, trigger and hammer pins? According to the ATF, even though it takes exactly the same amount of work to finish, marking those holes makes it a receiver.

The point in time where you put your first dimple on an AR-15 “80% lower” where any of those three holes will go it becomes a receiver.

How do we know? Because many different people and companies have sent samples to the ATF and asked for a determination letter. Is this a firearm? The ATF will then send back a letter saying yes or no.

So here is the magic of definitions and the every changing opinions of the ATF. Marking where the magic forth hole will go makes that hunk of aluminum not just a regular frame or receiver, it makes it a machine gun receiver.

How do you, a normal citizen know at which point you have a firearm and when you have just an object? It isn’t clear.

Because it isn’t clear, the courts rely on the agency to tell them. This is why the ATF gets to say. Now the courts do get to look at the definitions and say “ATF, you are full of shit. Your definition doesn’t match what is written in law.”

Which brings us to some stupids.

“The ATF is so wacko that they ruled that a shoelace was a machine gun.”

This is true. They did. And yes, the firearm that had that shoelace on it was a machine gun. So enterprising individual had created a fully automatic M1 Garand or made an M1A Semi-Auto rifle fully automatic by adding a string to it.

The string is tied to the trigger and then fed through a eye behind the trigger. With this you could pull the string to fire the rifle. When the rifle is fired, the charging handle comes back, the case is ejected and the bolt moves forward stripping a round from the magazine and chambering the round. The trigger is reset when it moves forward.

Now take the other end of that string and attach it to the charging handle. If the string is the right length, as the bolt, with charging handle, moves forward it pulls the string tight which pulls the trigger. Bang. Bolt and charging handle move backwards and the string goes slack. Trigger resets. Bolt moves forward and Bang again. Repeat until magazine is empty.

That is a machine gun.

As stated above, for years people that want to stay on the right side of the ATF have sent samples to the ATF and gotten determination letters back. The problem is that the ATF can change their mind. The lab back in DC sends out a determination letter that says “it is not a firearm”. A local ATF inspects the same thing and says it is. The determination letter isn’t going to keep you out of trouble.

Rare Breed Triggers, LLC and Rare Breed Firearms, LLC decided to poke the tigger. They created a device that fires only one shot “by a single function of the trigger”. This device used the rearward movement of the bolt to push the trigger forward along with the shooters finger to position the shooters finger to press the trigger again.

By engineering magic, the reset didn’t complete until it was safe for the shooter to press the trigger again.

From the outside, it looks a lot like a machine gun. It can be used to fire very rapidly. According to Rare Bread Triggers, LLC it is not a machine gun.

Their big poke in the eye of ATF was that they didn’t bother to ask ATF. They went to their lawyers, and their experts and asked “According to the law, is this a machine gun?”

Their lawyers and their experts said “it is not.”

Having received legal advise from their lawyers they proceeded to sell the FRT, or Forced Reset Trigger.

Of course the Karens of infringement land shit their collective panties. How dare somebody find a legal way to make and sell a fun switch for a firearm. Hadn’t they just gotten evil bump stocks banned? And now this FRT is trying the same thing, only different.

On January 19th, 2023 the US DoJ filed suit in the Eastern District of New York (Brookland) requesting a injunction against Rare Breed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, – v. – RARE BREED TRIGGERS, LLC; RARE BREED FIREARMS, LLC; LAWRENCE DEMONICO; KEVIN MAXWELL

The gist of the complaint is that Bruen doesn’t matter at all. Instead AR-15s are scary and some bad people have done bad things with AR-15s and the FRT-15 makes AR-15 even more super scary because they empty magazines faster!

As with most of these gun rights cases, the government always starts with telling the court how evil guns are and because guns are evil they should be restricted(infringed on) in some way. Post Bruen the government then says “and the evil thing we are going to ban isn’t protected by the second amendment, it is up to them to prove it is.” Followed by “It isn’t in common use because we they can’t show that the evil thing is actually fired in self-defense situations, much less commonly used.”

Judge Nina R Morrison granted the TRO that the DoJ requested on the 25th. This happened without attorneys for Rare Breed being there. On Jan 20th, the DoJ asked that the case be sealed and that was granted. On the 23rd the Judge granted an ex parte hearing.

An ex parte hearing is “done with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party.”

The DoJ got to present their side, the Judge granted the TRO. The defendants (good guys) were served and then the DoJ requested and was granted a motion to unseal the case.

At this point there are two dates are mentioned, Feb 2nd, 2023 and Feb 16th, 2023. So we should see some action on this in the near future.

Given that this is post Bruen it will be interesting to see if the lawyers attack with a Second Amendment claim or if they go with “ATF is overstepping their bounds”.

It will be interesting in many ways. While this is of smaller concern than pistol braces and bump stocks, it is closely related and might very well get grouped with those other cases on appeal.

In my option, Rare Breed went into this business with the desire to be sued up to the Supreme Court in order to attack the NFA.

Case Docket

H/T Grossly biased headline Judge blocks sale of machine gun converters after U.S. sues

McDonald’s, In-N-Out, and Chipotle are spending millions to block raises for their workers | CNN Business

California voters will decide next year on a referendum that could overturn a landmark new state law setting worker conditions and minimum wages up to $22 an hour for fast-food employees in the nation’s largest state.

(Corporations are fighting huge minimum wage increases, greedy companies, putting money over people)

Why California’s ‘strong’ gun laws are in danger | CNN Politics

Those gun laws -- which are under threat thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision -- only go so far in a country awash in guns, where there’s almost no action at the federal level, and where there is so much variation in gun laws from state to state and even within states.

(Bad laws are in danger of being struck down, oh always me…)

The Supreme Court is concerned about its own security — what about ours?

Chief Justice John Roberts says “A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear.” Neither should we.

(The Supreme Court followed the law and now I feel unsafe.  Whimper, pout)

Reading is precious – which is why I’ve been giving away my books | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett

I’m donating my books to people who can most benefit from them. Why keep a novel that could delight someone else?

(If you own a book you are greedy and insert insulting term, I’m better than you because I’m giving my cheap romance novels to those poor wretched creatures without my wonderfulness)

Statement from President Joe Biden on Introduction of Key Gun Safety Bills | The White House

When I signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act – the first significant piece of gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years – I said that there was

(Oh look, the Supreme Court followed the law so I’m going to infringe harder, that’ll show them)

Investigators find rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammo at home of Monterey Park mass shooter | CNN

Investigators looking through the home of the 72-year-old gunman who carried out a mass shooting in Monterey Park, California, on Saturday night found a .308 caliber rifle, hundreds of rounds of loose ammo and items that led them to believe he was building homemade firearm suppressors, Los Angeles C…

(Clutch your pearls!  They shooter had a rifle!  And he a few boxes of ammo.)

Connecticut governor’s gun proposals include open carry ban

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont announced a series of proposed gun laws Monday in a state already considered one of the strictest for firearms ownership, including a statewide ban on open carrying expected to draw strong opposition from gun rights supporters. Lamont revealed his latest plans to curb gu…

(We are going to make this state safe for every criminal!  No more scary guns showing on somebodies hip)

As we’ve said before, when there is no open carry, cops will say that if you print you are open carrying.  If there is no CCW but there is open carry, the cops will say you are carrying concealed if any part of the holster or firearm is covered in any way.

Firearms dealer from controversial Littleton gun shop cluster facing federal charges

A man who operates his business as part of a controversial gun shop cluster inside an old mill building in Littleton is facing federal charges.

(Oh my goodness, a bunch of FFLs are all in the same building!  And we managed to entrap one of them to making something that can be construed as a straw man sale)

Judge Temporarily Halts Illinois Assault Weapons Ban for Plaintiffs in Lawsuit

A judge is expected to rule Friday on whether or not to temporarily halt the Illinois assault weapons ban as legal challenges begin playing out in court.

A little bit of good news.

How Doug Liman Directed a Brett Kavanaugh FBI Investigation Doc in Secret

The filmmaker kept his project under wraps with the help of NDAs and a commitment to self-financing, with investigative doc vet Amy Herdy and Story Syndicate’s Dan Cogan and Liz Garbus helping bring his vision home.

A leftist directed a hit piece on Justice Kavanaugh based on the fact that the FBI didn’t check all of the spurious reports left on their tip line.

It has been a long week up here. Snow removal and power issues. The site keeps on trucking because it lives in a data center with all sorts of backups.

https://discourse.gunfreezone.net is back up and running. If you had some issues to begin with that is because you were attempting to do things before I had it completely restored, I think. If anybody is having any issues over there, please let me know down below in the comments.

I’ll be working on the videos shortly. That is a bit more work but we’ll get it done.

There has been a great deal of back and forth on the stabilizing brace v. SBR. Right now I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on it.

You are likely to get hit with some photography stuff in the coming weeks. I did my first “professional” photoshoot in 25 years yesterday and the results were amazing. And I can’t share it with you all.

Hagar is worried she is going to offend you all. I’ve told her “they are adults or nearly so. If you offend them, they’ll say as much. Can’t be as bad as J.Kb. calling my beloved home state full of retards. It isn’t full, it is only the seacoast that is full of leftist retards.

We do have a short update on CCIA cases, the Second Circuit court has scheduled an expedited hearing for March of 2023. This isn’t going to sit in limbo for years. Once the Second Circuit rules, the parties will appeal to the Supreme court.

Maybe…

It could be that NYS decides to just take the loss at the appellate level in order to keep the Supreme Court from hearing the case at this time.

The mechanism for challenging congress law vs executive branch rules/eo is the same no?

Sure the source is different but the outcome is the same, bad.
— Lenard

A very good question indeed. The different methods of the federal government getting an infringement in place are:

• Congress passes a bill and it is signed into law by the president, or the president vetoes the bill and congress overrides the veto.
• An agency, established by congress to implement law, puts a regulation into place.
• The president signs an executive order

When the president signs an executive order he is not creating rules, regulation or laws. He is issuing instructions to the executive branch to do (or not do) something.

When President Trump “Banned bump stocks” his executive order did not ban bump stocks. His EO told the ATF to create regulations that would ban bump stocks.

While it might feel like the same thing in practice it is not. Obama issued orders to the executive branch to not enforce immigration law. Trump issued orders to enforce immigration law. Neither Trump nor Obama could change the law by EO, only direct the enforcement of the law.

While Obama’s “ignore EO” was in place, if a C&BP officer picked up an illegal alien, they could arrest that illegal alien and start proceedings on that illegal alien. That would have all been legal, because the immigration law that made that person an “illegal alien” was still in place. The fact that the people above that officer or the people downstream of that arrest then set the illegal alien free was because of the EO.

To attack an EO in court you go to the court and find standing. This can be difficult or easy. Living in NH it is difficult for me to have standing in Obama having issued EOs regarding illegal aliens. It might be easier for people on our southern border.

Once the court has decided you have standing, you then can ask the court to order the executive branch to follow the law. The left had many successes in finding judges that would find they had standing and then order a nationwide injunction blocking the implementation of Trump’s EOs.

The right had a much more difficult time of finding a court that would grant an injunction much less a nationwide injunction. Instead the injunctions, when given, were narrowly tailored and often held pending appeal.

At no time is the constitution directly involved in these cases. This makes it easier to bring the case.

In the second case, we have an agency making a rule or regulation with the force of law.

These are also challenged in court. They again require the plaintiffs to establish standing. The question then asked is related to procedures “Did the agency follow the law when they drafted the regulation and when they then finalized and published the regulations?” and also if the regulation actually follows the law, as written.

Congress gave the EPA extensive power over the environment. They pass regulations all the time. Those regulations have to be given a public commenting period. The EPA has to “evaluate” those comments. They then have to publish the new regulation(s) in the federal registry in order for them to become active.

The EPA could create a regulation mandating the total amount of sulfur-dioxide that a vehicle can emit per unit time or unit distance. This would be well within the framework of the law which created the EPA. It might be that they demand something that is impossible or at least prohibitively expensive, but it would be within the law.

It would be very difficult to challenge that law in court.

On the other hand, if they created a regulation that required all power lines to have a 20 ft horizontal easement extending upwards 200ft to be kept clear of all vegetation or overhangs that would be easier to challenge.

That easement regulation is outside of the boundaries of the law that created the EPA. The EPA would have to have a reason within those boundaries for the regulation. Just wanting the power to stay on isn’t enough.

The challenge would come from somebody with standing (“They intend to cut down all the trees on my property which provides any privacy!”) and then they would challenge that the regulation does not follow the law, as passed by congress.

Finally we get to laws. Laws have to be challenged by a person with standing as well. It is often times more difficult to find people with standing for challenging a law than for challenging an EO or regulation.

Consider the case of NYSR&PA v. City of New York, New York. In this case they had to find plaintiffs with standing. They found 3 or 4 people that wanted to transport their personal, registered, firearms outside of NYC. They were forbidden because the city had a rule that had the force of law forbidding transportation outside of the city.

The case was attacking a regulation, not because the regulation didn’t follow the rules when it was established, nor because the rule didn’t follow the law, but because it was a violation of the peoples second amendment rights.

The question before the court was whether the law was constitutional as applied. That law was allowed by cause of laws passed at the state level that allowed the city to make law and the police to make rules.

In the end, the police changed the policy/regulation, the city said we won’t do it again, and the state said “we aren’t going to allow the city to do that particular thing again.”

This mooted the case.

In the end, these EOs, regulations, rules, policies and laws are all infringements. They all have to be challenged in court and overturned. There are just more, and easier challenges against EOs, rules, regulation and policies than there are directly against laws.

B.L.U.F.

The left is having knee-jerk reactions to Bruen because they feel that Bruen was an attack on them.

The continuous attack by Arabs on the Israel has been going on since before Israel became a country. Within days of becoming a country six different Arab nations attacked with the goal of destroying Israel.

They failed.

That hasn’t stopped them from being murderous assholes. Mass shootings that became bombings that became multiple bombings. Knife attacks, attacking with cars, shooting rockets into Israel, all with the intention of causing terror within the population of Israel.

A few years ago I was listening to talk radio on the way to work. There had just been another attack on Israel and they had brought on two people to talk about the issues.

It was a shit fest, to say the least. Israeli would say “We bombed this military target as a direct response to these bombings”. The Arab would then interject that they were only blowing up school children because the Israelis had killed some murderous leader of the terrorists.

At no time did the Arab ever realize, or more likely care, that he was justifying murder because the Israelis had responded to the last murders. His only argument was “they did it first” without seeing that there was any difference. The attacks were all justified in his mind.

For years the right to keep and bear arms has been under attack. Small incremental infringements leading to larger and larger infringements. The infringers always making progress to their goal, removing all firearms from the American populous.

In 2022, Biden signed the first federal gun infringement law in over 2 decades. In his signing statement he said it was a start. He admitted that he wanted more.

In 2008, the gun infringers were slapped down for the first time in a very long time. There were a couple of cases in the mid to late 90’s but no real progress on the right to keep and bear arms.

The infringers lost their shit. How dare the Supreme Court rule against them?

To this day you will hear them say “Until 2008 the Supreme Court had never found that that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.” Because of the Miller opinion, the infringing states and the infringing circuits were using “Militia” to hang their infringements on.

Everything was constitutional because the Militia referred to the National Guard of each state and the state was just making rules for those that were not part of the militia. No conflict with the constitution.

Heller changed that.

Chicago, opps, that would be Cook county, oops, really Illinois, responded to Heller with a big FU. They continued the no issue stance they had always had.

Here’s the thing to internalize, they were responding to the Supreme Court giving them a big FU. They only had reasonable, safety oriented laws about guns. They didn’t stop people from hunting. They were just making sure the state was as free from gun [related] violence as possible. How dare the Supreme Court let all those guns loose in the streets of Chicago. There will be blood in running down every sidewalk when all those gun tottingtoting idiots start shooting it out over parking places.

In a facebook or G+ conversation, one of the infringers was telling me about this horrible bar fight they had personally observed. They knew that both of the people brawling were armed with firearms. It was so scary and dangerous, who knew what would happen?

My reply was “We do know, the guns stayed in their holsters, because that is what we do.”

When the Supreme Court fast tracked McDonald and said that the Second Amendment applied to the states, the gun infringing states again responded by making “may issue” but with so many hoops to jump through that it became all mostalmost impossible to actually get permission from the state to exercise your rights.

Again, the left felt like they were responding to an attack on them. The Court was forcing redneck culture on them.

And we see the same thing, now, in Bruen. The Court was asked “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” by the plaintiffs, and the defendants restatement “Whether the Second Amendment prohibits New York from requiring residents who wish to carry a concealed firearm in public to have an actual and articulable need to do so.”

The above quotes are from the original application for cert. and the response.

Bruen answered the question extremely well. The Court said that states could not require “good cause” when deciding to issuing permission to exercise a right.

But Bruen went on to tell the inferior courts how they should address future second amendment cases. This was the big win for us. Not the removal of “good cause” but because that was a part of the rearticulated statement of how the inferior courts need to rule in 2A cases.

The gun infringers took this as a huge FU.

Of course they did. They had to. The Supreme Court refused to listen to reason. The Supreme court again decided that gun toting assholes could carry without being strictly vetted. To make sure they were worth of the government granting them permission to exercise their rights.

Of course they responded in kind. They don’t see this as just a return to reason, they see this as having victory yanked from their grasp. This turned everything around.

They responded with a bowl of spaghetti that they threw against the wall. They have two goals in this action, to find out which arguments stick and are allowed, and the other is to require as many suits as possible of their opponents.

It doesn’t cost the State of New York anything extra to have a dozen cases running. All the lawyers and all the paralegals they are using are either salaried or being paid for by your taxes. Everyone that is filling these cases is paying some lawyer to represent them.

O.F.F. is reported to be spending $60,000 per month on its one case. In reality, that number should be closer to $250,000 per month.

These cases eat money. The state has done everything in their power to make it expensive. If the courts strike down “churches are sensitive places” this is a win, it is still a long path until the decision sticks. Unfortunately the state doesn’t have to stop enforcing “parks are sensitive places” because that question wasn’t asked.

Our team has to find multiple people that have standing to challenge that part of the law. Each part of the list of sensitive places has to be challenged.

It is going to be a long battle and they show no signs of stopping.

Seriously, J.Kb.’s article is spot on regarding storm prep. It is entirely different in New Hampshire. My article Gas it up! was actually written before he posted and I read his article.

Different locations have to prepare differently. One of my clients is based out of Florida, they prepare for very differently than we do. Electricity is what provides them with survival in that horrible heat.

Up in the New Hampshire we did have a poor attitude towards state wide storm prep. That is to say that it use to be “if the power goes out, we’ll fix it”. The ice storm changed that policy. From spring until late fall we’ll see road crews out there trimming back trees.

I don’t know how tall the trees of Florida grow, but I’ve got some trees in my yard that are over 50 feet tall. That means that to clear the powerlines any tree that is taller than the distance to the powerline would have to be topped or felled.

Around here, most of the power outages were caused by idiots that forgot that snow is slippery and took out poles or knocked things into power lines.

When we lived in Maryland we didn’t have huge storms but we still prepared. It was just different. In Maryland the prep work was food. As soon as they heard a storm was coming the population would buy out all the stores of every last bit of food.

If we lost power during a winter storm that meant we were going to be moving to a shelter because almost nobody had real heating backup.

I’ve had power outages in most places where I’ve lived. Massive outages are few and places like New Hampshire and Florida actually do prepare for them and both do a good job.

J.Kb. If you are ever in the situation where you need a place to stay, come visit. We’ll feed you well and we can enjoy wood heat.

Large parts of our town are without power. We were without power off and on Monday. Everything is back up now for us but there are still 1000s of people without power in our town and still more in surrounding areas.

What does power out mean for us? Not much. We are prepared for power outages.

A few years ago an ice storm came through and took out the power over large parts of the state. The outage was so bad people were being forced from their homes. The cost was so high to the power company that they created a new policy of proactively trimming back trees that overhang power lines.

Many years ago my father called the local power company because a tree on our property was overhanging the power lines and he was afraid it would fall and take out the power lines. The power company’s answer? “When it falls and takes out the power, let us know and we’ll come restore power.”

This was the state of preventive care for power lines for many many years.

So we know that long term power outages are possible. What does it mean to us? Again, not much, we are prepared for power outages.

The thing to know is that electricity is required for many things within your house that are fueled by other means. For example, your oil burning furnace has a pump, an igniter and fans that move hot air around your home. Without electricity, your oil/gas furnace doesn’t work.

At the fram, we had a dual fuel furnace. It used both wood and oil. While we were there I think we went through about 10 gallons of fuel oil. The house was heated with wood. With electric fans to move the heat around the house.

There was a time when gas stoves were the norm. Only the fancy/rich people got electric stoves. Today electric stoves are the cheaper option and most people have electric stoves. It is also safer to provide an electric stove to a renter than to allow them to use a gas stove.

Some idiot leaves the electric on, it makes for a very hot burner. It might even destroy a burner. But that’s a $10 part replacement.

Some idiot turns on the gas but doesn’t light it and you can easily get gas concentrations high enough to ignite and burn down the building.

When we purchased the house we had an oil furnace, electric water heater, electric appliances. Over time we’ve replaced the electric stove and electric dryer with gas versions.

Having a gas stove means that we can cook, even if the power is out. The electric start doesn’t work, but we can light a gas burner with a match or lighter. No big deal. We actually have an out of gas bic long reach lighter next to the stove. The spark still works and the spark is at the end of the long neck. Turn on the gas, reach in with the lighter, pull the trigger and get sparks that light the stove.

Even before we had the gas stove, we had the ability to cook with gas. Our outdoor grill is gas powered and has a side burner. We can cook on the side burner or bake in the grill side.

Without power, our gas oven doesn’t work, which isn’t a huge issue for us.

Our primary source of heat is a wood stove in the living room. There are a couple of the cheap thermo-electric fans that sit on top and move the heat around. No power? No problem. That stove heats up most of the house.

We have Coleman gas lanterns, we have oil lamps, we have long burning candles. Long burning? Try two or three weeks. I’ve never been able to completely use up one of the candles mom makes.

For auxiliary heating I have a kerosene heater that is rated for indoor use. We also have a multi-fuel military heater that runs on fuel oil, gas, or kerosene. I would have to plumb the smoke stack, but it is certainly powerful enough to heat most of the house.

Our gas system was designed by me and installed by a professional. You do not want to mess around with gas lines.

We use two 100# propane bottles as our feed. Only one bottle is open at a time. It feeds up through a valve into a cross connect that then feeds into the regulator. The regulator then feeds the supply line to the stove and drier. If we want to upgrade the hot water, then we are prepared to do that in the future.

If the feed tank runs empty we just walk outside, shut the tank valve, shut the cross connect valve on the empty tank and turn on the valves on the full tank.

Later that week I’ll disconnect the empty tank, load it into the truck, drive to the local propane provider and get the tank filled.

Because of the price of propane and gas going up we also have a spare.

And if it gets bad, i.e both tanks run dry, I can hook up one of the little 20# tanks.

Those gas appliances give us a level of independence that electric never will.

On, we also have a generator. If power was out for an extended period of time we can pull the disconnect and power our home from the generator. That would allow us to keep the fridge and freezers at temperature. Without running the genset constantly.

The genset is powerful enough to actually drive the machine shop, but is portable as well.

There is always more to “bans” that first meets the eye. Banning gas stoves is a step towards government control of more of our lives.