Gun Free Zone

*Man physically attacks woman in broad daylight*

"I'll kill you," the woman warns her attacker.

"Oh, you about to kill me?" the attacker responds arrogantly.

"Watch this."

*gun shot*

The great equalizer.pic.twitter.com/SQivGbYfx4

— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) February 17, 2023

That thug was all attitude when he thought he was bigger and stronger and capable of manhandling a women.

He started apologizing real fast when that first bullet hit him.

Fox39 Chicago is reporting that the woman was an off-duty police officer.

The man, Leevon Smith, has previously had felony charges against him for attempting robbery and aggravated battery.

According to the officer, and it seems clear on the video, Smith tried to steal her bag with her off-duty/backup weapon in it.

Yeah, he fucked up.

He played a stupid game, won three stupid prizes, and ended up in the stupid prize hall of fame (the morgue).

God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal.

B.L.U.F. California Assemblymember Gipson has introduced legislation that would punish people that send STL or CNC files to people in California without state permission.

The International Traffic in Arms Regulation, or ITAR.

That’s right, while the state of California is arguing that magazines are not Arms covered under the Second Amendment, the federal government has or had listed ciphers as an “arm” covered by ITAR(22 USC. §2778).

(b) Information security or information assurance systems and equipment, cryptographic devices, software, and components, as follows:

(1) Military or intelligence cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components, and software (including their cryptographic interfaces) capable of maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information systems, including equipment or software for tracking, telemetry, and control (TT&C) encryption and decryption;

(2) Military or intelligence cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components, and software (including their cryptographic interfaces) capable of generating spreading or hopping codes for spread spectrum systems or equipment;

(3) Military or intelligence cryptanalytic systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components and software;

(4) Military or intelligence systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components, or software (including all previous or derived versions) authorized to control access to or transfer data between different security domains as listed on the Unified Cross Domain Management Office (UCDMO) Control List (UCL); or

(5) Ancillary equipment specially designed for the articles in paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(4) of this category.

While it says “military or intelligence cryptographic” the truth of the matter is that if the encryption is good enough to be “military grade”, then it is covered by ITAR.

Back in 1991, Phil Zimmerman created a program called “Pretty Good Privacy” or PGP. Today it continues as Gnu PGP or GPG. This software consisted of three major parts, a method of doing key exchange via public key cryptography, a symmetric cipher to encrypt the actual message, a methodology for establishing key trust.

He released this for free on the Internet using FTP.

Shortly thereafter the United States Customs Service started investigating Zimmerman because the “high strength cryptography” of PGP made it a munition covered under ITAR.

What this meant was that if somebody from outside of the United States or who was not a US citizen could download the software it was considered exporting without a license.

Zimmerman fought this on First Amendment grounds. He was loosing and the government kept coming after him. He finally won the case after the distribution started happening from outside the US.

One of the ways that the software was legally exported was that the core algorithm was printed in an OCR font on a Tee-shirt and then worn through customs. There were other examples of this methodology. Where the code was printed in OCR format and then it could be shipped.

The government finally figured out that the code, printed out in a machine readable font was protected under the first Amendment. They then applied a little bit of logic and came to the determination that having the code as a file on the Internet was no different from printing it out and then being able to read it back in.

I.e. If OCR is protected, is paper tape/punch cards? If paper tape/punch cards are protect, what about magnetic tape? If magnetic tape is protected speech, what about files stored on magnetic disk or CDs?

In the end the government agreed that it was all protected speech. Computer programs are works of art and can be copyrighted just like any other piece of art. (This article is “a piece of art” in this context.)

Which brings us to the next step in this monstrosity which is gun infringement world.

There is a bill currently before the California legislature which would make the following lines of text not illegal but open to a civil action against somebody outside of California or inside.

N10 T5 ( Select Tool #5, 0.109 drill)
N20 M6 (load tool)
N30 G0 Z0.250
N40 G0 X5.572 Y0.123
N50 G81 Z-1.25 R0.25 F0.5
N60 G80
N70 T6 (Select tool #6, 0.125 reamer )
N80 G01 Z-1.25 F0.5
N90 G01 Z0.25

If you were to locate 0,0 on the forward take down pin of an AR-15 receiver, those instructions tell a CNC machine to load a 7/64th drill bit, move to a location on the AR-15 receiver, drill a hole there, load a 1/8 reamer and ream the hole that was drilled to size.

For those that aren’t in the know, that’s a small hole just above the selector switch. Number extracted from M4A1 blueprints.

The bill would additionally provide that a civil action may be brought against a person who distributes any code or digital instructions for the manufacture of a firearm using a three-dimensional printer or CNC milling machine. The bill would specify that a person is strictly liable for any personal injury or property damage caused by any firearm manufactured using the distributed code.

This is the game that is currently being played in the legislature and courts, we, the government, aren’t going to throw you in jail for violation of this statue, but we are going to encourage all the people to sue you out of existance.

One of the magic things in this bill is that a CNC machine is only OK if it isn’t “reasonably designed or intended to be used to manufacture or produce a firearm.” I’m sorry but if you have a CNC machine, it doesn’t care if it is an AR15 receiver in the vise or a medical device. This bit of language game sounds good, but any CNC machine they decide was used to work on a firearm would be covered under this bill.

They have also decided that being an FFL isn’t right for them. So now they are requiring state-licenses. Not sure how that works, but I can be pretty sure that the difficulty of getting an FFL to manufacture a firearm from the ATF is much easier than getting a California License to manufacture a firearm. You will still need the FFL, it just isn’t good enough on its own for California.

For purposes of this section, a CNC milling machine or three-dimensional printer has the primary or intended function of manufacturing firearms if the machine or printer is marketed or sold to the public in a manner that advertises that the machine or printer may be used to manufacture firearms, or in a manner that knowingly or recklessly promotes the machine’s use in manufacturing firearms, by individuals who are not California licensed firearms manufacturers, regardless of whether the machine or printer is otherwise described or classified as having other functions or as a general-purpose machine or printer.

This means that if Hass markets a CNC machine as a full capacity CNC machining center, and somebody, not to say Everytown would do this, but somebody who is not Hass then publishes an advertisement for a Jig that works in that Haas to hold AR-15 receivers, this law would turn all such Haas machines into “primary or intended” to make firearms.

Go read this monster, it is only a few pages long. Just another infringer attempting to limit our rights to keep and bear arms.

California Assembly Bill No 1089

Nikon DSLRs as almost all DSLRs or other digital cameras allow you to capture your images in raw format.  This is a cropped image from my Nikon D4 with an OK lens and the minimal amount of processing.  The processing that has been done is “Raw black/white point”, “demosaic”, “input color profile”, and “output color profile”.

The “Raw black/white point” is some sort of magic I don’t understand.  It is a required module and I’ve not modified any of the settings.

The demosaic module is designed to remove patterns that come about because the sensor is a collection of small sensors and they are arranged in a mosaic.  By demosaicing an image you remove those patterns.

Input and output color profile express what part of the color spectrum you are shooting for.  For me, it is normally sRGB as most of the images I create are designed to be used in computer/web instances.

As you can see, the image is on it’s side and looks green as crap.  It looks shitty to say the least.

Read More

Let’s make a law that will immediately will be ignored.

Now, a proposed law would make it a misdemeanor for gun owners to improperly store firearms or ammunition in a car or boat. The law would not apply if the gun was kept from “ordinary observation” and locked in a trunk, glove box or locked container attached to the car or boat.

The bill introduced by Rep. Caleb Hemmer (D-Davidson County) would require people to report the loss or theft of a firearm to police within 24 hours of finding it missing.

A violation would result in a Class C misdemeanor. However, the punishment would not be a fine or jail time. Instead, the law would require offenders to complete a court-approved firearm safety course.

TN bill would penalize unlocked guns left in cars after record thefts (wkrn.com)

Read the Text. 

You guys know I have no love for leaving guns unsecured in cars, especially with all the available options in the market for a vehicular car safe. But Making a law that penalizes the owner three times is imbecilic, but par for Gun Control morons. And correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t this law violate the 5th Amendment? Forcing a citizen to incriminate himself is pretty much a Constitutional No-No.

But Gun Control activists do seem to have an overall dislike for the Bill of Rights.

THEN THEY CAME FOR THE COPS: CALIFORNIA AIMS TO HALT POLICE PISTOL CARVE-OUT

A bill introduced in the California State Legislature last week will strip the exemption enjoyed by peace officers in the Golden State that allows them to buy “off-roster” handguns for personal use.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Berkeley-area Democrat, filed SB 377 on Feb. 9. The measure will both prevent law enforcement officers from being able to purchase pistols that are not on the state’s Roster of Certified Handguns, and eliminate the LE exemption from California’s controversial 10-day waiting period. In Skinner’s eyes, both are loopholes that are being exploited.

“Law enforcement officers are not allowed to purchase other illegal products in the state,” said Skinner in a statement. “Guns should be no different.”

Good!

Cops shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns that every other civilian can’t own.

They can be issued whatever duty weapon their department wants, but they should have absolutely no right to purchase a personal weapon that is anything that other civilians cannot personally purchase.

That is equality under the law.

No special privileges for badge holders.

If the Cops want to buy unrestricted personal weapons they can lobby for those guns to come off restrictions.

Until then, Fuck ’em.

Must Watch: Teen saves man and dog from an icy lake — and a drone caught it all

After a Jeep fell through the ice Saturday, 17-year-old Joe Salmon jumped into the water to save Thomas Lee, 83, and his dog Cooper, 6, who were trapped.

Lee was heading to his son-in-law’s fishing shack when his car fell through the ice, about 200 miles northwest of Des Moines.

“I want to thank the people who helped and the store that took the dog in and dried him off,” Lee said.

Corey McConnell, 30; Kody Harrelson, 26; Cody Chester, 27; and Chris Parks, 27; also helped pull the man and dog to safety, the sheriff’s office post said.

Salmon — a wrestler, football player and track runner — was ice fishing with his mother while watching snowmobile races on East Okoboji Lake when he saw the Jeep around 3 p.m.

Salmon grabbed his phone and dialed 911. Lee appeared to be in shock as Salmon and the four others told him to get out, he said. Then he heard someone say something was moving in the back.

“I took one step and [the water] went to about my chest,” he said. “I got on the bumper of the rear and tried opening the back door, but all the windows were locked, but one guy gave me a knife and I hit the back glass a couple of times.”

The young man, Joe Salmon, had the will and wherewithal to rush towards to danger to help someone but had to borrow a tool to do that.

I don’t know how kids are raised up north, but as a Miami boy I was raised to always have something capable of breaking a car window and cutting a seat belt on me or in my car.

That’s because there are so many canals in Miami that going off the road and into a canal and drowning is a real possibility.  It happens multiple times every year.

I would take that same attitude and multiply it a thousand times if I were driving on ice over a lake.

As the motto of the US  Coast Guard goes: Semper Paratus.

It’s the same motto as the Boy Scouts: Be Prepared.

There is no more critical and valuable tool in your tool box than a quality knife.

If you can, multi-tool or Swiss Army style knife is better, but have the tool on hand you need for emergency extrication.

Good job Mr. Salmon.  Now somebody buy him a quality knife.

B.L.U.F. Everytown out maneuvered Second Amendment supporters but managed an own goal by exposing a nasty biased Judge sitting on the Oregon Circuit Court.

H/T. to B.zH who made me spend to much time doing research. Enjoy.

Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:

“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

10 U.S. Code §892 – Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation

Any person subject to this chapter who–

1. violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
2. having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
3. is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

One of the differences in our military traditions is that “I was just following orders.” is not an acceptable excuse. You have to be following lawful orders. Determining what is an is not a lawful order is what gets people in trouble.

An order given by a superior is presumed to be lawful. Regardless, if U.S. Military personal follow an order that is later determined to be unlawful, they can be court-martialed and punished.

Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office, Oregan: Oath of Office:

OATH OF OFFICE
I, __________________, being first duly sworn, as a Deputy Sheriff, upon oath say and affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Oregon, the Clackamas County Code, and all the laws thereof, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties in accordance with the lawful policies and procedures of the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.

I hold my position and authority on behalf of the people. Through my professional and personal example, I shall uphold the public trust and meet the public’s high expectations of me through my observance of the Criminal Justice Code of Ethics.

In reverence for the law, I shall conduct my duties in good faith, with honesty, courage, and justice, to the best of my ability. In so doing, I shall build the peoples’ trust and confidence in my position. I shall never betray them by willfully abusing my powers, authority, or knowledge.

So what does it actually mean if a County passes an ordinance that says, in short “Follow the Law of the Land?”

In 2018 Columbia County passed Initiative Measure 5-270 (“SAPO”) and then in 2020 Initiative Measure 5-278 (“SASO”).

In April of 2021 three members of county, supported by lawyers from Everytown filed suit to have these ordenances overturned as “unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal and Oregon law”.

These two initiatives where then combined as ordinance no 2021-1 by the Board of Commissioners for Columbia County, Oregon.
Ordinance No. 2021-1

PROHIBITIONS

1. No agent, employee, or official of Columbia County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, while acting in their official capacity, shall:
   1. Knowingly and willingly, participate in any way in the enforcement of any Extraterritorial Act, as defined herein; or
   2. Utilize any assets, county funds, or funds allocated by any entity to the county, in whole or in part, to engage in activity that aids in the enforcement or investigation related to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.
   3. Authorize or appropriate governmental funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing any element of such acts, laws, orders, mandates, rules or regulations, that infringe on the right by People to keep and bear arms, except as otherwise provided herein.
2. While within Columbia County, this Ordinance preserves the right of any person to keep and bear arms as originally understood; in self-defense and preservation, and in defense of one’s community and country, and to freely manufacture, transfer, sell and buy firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition, which are designed primarily for the same purposes and protects ancillary rights that are closely related to the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment; including the right to manufacture, transfer, buy and sell firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition (“ancillary firearm rights”).

This case has complications because the different parties are not as expected. The players in this are:

• Plaintiffs(bad guys) supported by Everytown
• County Board of Commissioners, accused of being bad guys
• Intervenors (good guys), GOA, OFF, and others
• AG/State of Oregon (bad guys)

History

The people of the county were asked if they wanted to be a Second Amendment Preservation county and were later asked if they wanted to extend that into being a Second Amendment Sanctuary. In both elections the citizens of the county voted to be pro Second Amendment.

As initiatives, these have more “power” than mere ordenances. Ordinances are by the will of the representatives. In this case the Board of Commissioners. Whereas the initiatives are the will of the people and are presumed to be constitutional. IANAL. This is gleaned from reading the filings.

Intervenors’ Opening Brief

As a preliminary matter, Intervenors object to the validity of the Petition for Validation of Local Government Action (“Pet.”) filed by the Columbia County Board (“Board”), as this is not the proper proceeding for a county board to challenge the validity of either Measure 5-270 or Measure 5-278 (“Initiatives”). Neither is this validation proceeding the proper method for the Board to challenge its own Ordinance 2021-1 (“Ordinance”), which was enacted as a contrivance to undermine the legality and constitutionality of the Initiatives which were popularly enacted by the People.1 Indeed, the Petition seeks “a judicial determination and judgment of the Court as to the regularity,2 legality and effect” not only of “Ordinance 2021-1,” but also of “Initiative Measures 5-270 and 5-278.” Pet. at 3. The latter portion is impermissible.

Footnote 1 of the Intervenors’ Opening Brief:

The Board puts forth no argument and makes no claim that the Initiatives were not lawfully passed. Indeed, the Oregon Constitution provides that “[t]he people reserve to themselves the Initiative power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly.” Ore. Const. Art. IV, § 1(2)(a). The Initiatives in this matter were properly included on the ballots and passed by a majority vote (see Exhibits “6” and “7” to the Petition). As such, they are presumptively lawful and constitutional. See State v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 9 Or App 189, 196, 495 P2d 751, 754 (1972) (“[l]egislative action is always supported by a strong presumption of constitutionality….”).

So this looks to be a strong case just from this brief read.

2021.06.24-Intervenors-Opening-Brief

The State AG weighed in on the side of the plaintiffs (bad guys) but the language is interesting. They are only asking for a summary judgement against Ordinance No. 2021-1. Not the Initiatives. It seems like the GOA, OFF et all had the right of it.

The Attorney General moves for summary judgment under ORCP 47, asking the Court to declare that the Columbia County Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance, enacted by Ordinance No. 2021-1, is invalid. The Attorney General’s motion is supported by the pleadings and papers on file and the points and authorities set forth below.

2021.06.24-Attorney-Generals-MSJ

Everytown replies to the Intervenor’s motion for summary with the same argument, that they are attacking Ordinance No. 2021-1.

Very interesting that they just ignore the Initiatives as well.

2021.07.08-Columbia-County-Residents-Response-to-Intervenors-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment

And the County’s reply:
2021.07.08-Petitioners-Reply-to-Intervenors-Opening-Brief

The county admits that they adopted Ordinance No. 2021-1 with the intention of requesting judicial review. This seems to be supported by law. I don’t know that they could have requested judicial review of the Initiatives.

The good news! Presiding Judge Ted E. Grove denied the request because the Petitioners(bad guys/Everytown) did not have “justiciable controversy.”

Petitioners do not seek to defend their ordinance from a challenge or resolve some conflict between parties. They do not attempt to overcome resistance from the Sheriff or State Police, nor, as apparent from their pleadings, would they defend their ordinance at all even if challenged. Instead, Petitioners seek what amounts to an advisory opinion designed to invalidate their own newly passed ordinance.

cc-court-decision1

Of course Everytown appealed, which lead to the the following opinion from the state appeals court:

Their appeal is that the lower court decided incorrectly. They bring nothing new to the argument and just tell the appeals court to read what was already presented.
2021.07.15-FINAL-Columbia-County-Residents-Reply-iso-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment

2021.06.24-Columbia-County-Residents-MSJ

The state circuit court of appeals says that there was “justiciable controversy.” That controversy was the threat of litigation. IANAL, it looks like Everytown got the Board to create the ordinance, then threatened to sue the county over the ordinance, at which point the county asked for judicial validation of the Ordinance No. 2021-1, which they didn’t need to do in the first place.

On the merits, the SASO fails. It is implicitly preempted by multiple state laws, ranging from state gun safety legislation (including recently enacted legislation) to the Oregon Tort Claims Act. The SASO is expressly preempted by Oregon’s Firearms Preemption Statute, ORS 166.170. It also is preempted by federal law, and therefore runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause. The SASO fails to address matters of county concern. The SASO is invalid, preempted and unconstitutional.

So there you have it. It is illegal to pass a law/ordinance that requires law enforcement to follow the law, because the law mentioned was a US Constitutionally protected right.

The SASO is rooted in the flawed premise underlying Measure 5-278 (2020), that local governments can ignore and disregard state and federal gun safety legislation. …

Emphasis added.

They are not gun safety laws, they are infringements.

The appeals court then says that the trial court was in error on controversy because the County did indeed pass an ordinance and as such could request the validation hearing, with no real controversy. If the County Board of Supervisors had not passed Ordinance No. 2021-1 there would be no case.

Opinion of the State Circuit Court of appeals:

1. The Court of Appeals Should Reach the Merits.
2. The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance Is Invalid and May Not Be Enforced.
   1. The SASO Is Preempted by Oregon Law.
      1. The SASO Is Implicitly Preempted by Oregon Law.
      2. The SASO Is Expressly Preempted by Oregon’s Firearms Preemption Statute.
   2. The SASO Is Preempted by Federal Law.
   3. The SASO Does Not Address “Matters of County Concern.”
   4. The SASO is Inseverable.

The Oregon State court of appeals thus declared the “SASO” invalid and unconstitutionalColumbia_County_v_Oregon_Interested_Parties_Opening_Brief and found for the Plaintiffs(Bad guys).

But wait! There is more! Judge James Egan decided to use his position as a judge to write 27 pages of concurring “opinion”.

I must be clear that the flawed quasi-legal argument offered by Intervenors—viz., the UN wants to disarm Americans—and the proposed solution—viz., imposing a duty on county sheriffs to determine which laws are constitutional—have their origins in the insidious effort to oppress, in violation of fundamental notions of due process and equal protection under the rule of law. And in doing so, the Ordinance undermines, not elevates, the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

He justifies this screed with the following footnote:

This journalistic function of a concurrence was best characterized by Judge James in State v. Bledsoe, 311 Or App 183, 197, 487 P3d 862, rev den, 368 Or 637 (2021) (James, J., concurring):

“Judicial opinions serve many functions, and one of those is journalistic. Our opinions are dispatches from the edge—moments, recounted for posterity, of how Oregon’s laws * * * and the lives of its citizens, intersect.”

Here the judge brings forth his mind reading abilities to discern the motives of the people that sponsored the Initiatives, got them turned into an Ordinance, and then defended them in court.

“The Antisemitic and Racist Origins of the Ordinance”

CSPOA[Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association] claims to eschew racist ideology, but in fact its leaders embrace racist and white nationalist ideologies. The growing “constitutional sheriffs” movement intends to increase the risk of conflict between local law enforcement and federal authorities. The movement is animated by the deeply flawed and ahistorical view that county sheriffs hold ultimate law-enforcement authority in each individual county outranking federal and state authority. This deeply flawed and legally incorrect analysis holds that the superiority of county authority is deeply rooted in Anglo-American law. The anti-democratic ideas and quasi-legal theories propounded by the CSPOA and embedded in Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinances have their origins in the writings of William Potter Gale, who founded the posse comitatus movement in the 1960s. They also have their origins in the writings of the Aryan Nation, an antisemitic, white supremist group.

This Judge is telling us that the people that want Second Amendment Sanctuaries are racist and antisemitic because he things the movement is a direct continuation of some other nasty group.

If you want to read it for yourself: 2023-a176726