I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
Due to a recently issued patent I now am the sole inventor on three different patents. For various personal reasons I am not very public about the details of two of them. However, the first one, 4,412,299, does not share those concerns.
The title is Phase Jitter Detector. This was an invention to help meet speech immunity requirements for a Touch-Tone receiver. What is “speech immunity?” It turns out that because the old analog phone lines used the same channel for voice and signaling (the Touch-Tone digits) background speech, music, and other sounds would sometimes simulate a Touch-Tone digit with sufficient accuracy to insert a false digit into your dialed number. This false digit would result in a wrong number.
The problem increased in severity as the dynamic range of the receiver increased. With some reasonable precautions the problem was kept under control with normal subscriber to central office communications. But in the late 1970s and 1980s companies were creating things which they wanted to be able to remotely control. Examples from that time are answering machines to private branch exchanges (remember “dial nine for an outside line?”) where you could call the “main number” and then dial “One for Parts, two for Service, three for Sales, etc.. The receivers used for subscriber-to-subscriber communications required nearly twice the dynamic range of subscriber to central office communication. With this requirement the speech immunity problems went way up.
You could design a receiver which would would avoid the speech hits but in doing so you reduced the noise immunity of the receiver. A small amount of noise would prevent the detection of valid Touch-Tone digits. In other words, there is a trade-off between speech immunity and noise immunity. In the subscriber-to-subscriber signaling case you needed far better than normal noise immunity while retaining whatever speech immunity you could.
This speech immunity versus noise problem inspired me to get my master’s degree in electrical engineering. The graph below is from my thesis:
IIRC, the minimum A-level for subscriber to C.O. signaling was about –28 dBm. For subscriber-to-subscriber signaling the minimum A-level was about –40 dBm. Using a standard test tape from AT&T and a receiver without any guarding against speech hits the number of speech hits nearly tripled for this lower signal strength acceptance level.
My invention enabled the accurate distinction between a true Touch-Tone signal and speech/music/etc. which imitated a Touch-Tone digit. The receiver utilizing this invention, TelTone’s M-937 Touch-Tone Receiver, was able to meet any published requirements for subscriber-to-subscriber receivers for both noise and speech immunity. To the best of my knowledge no other production receiver was ever able to make that claim.
We also need to FOIA or subpoena any and all documents related to the writing and passage of these laws. If there is intent to deprive people of their rights, file a 1983 claim. If that bears fruit, then demand the feds file 18 USC 242 charges. You might only get a few with that one, like governors, they are chief LEO’s, but it would be a start.
zmunitions @zmunitions1 Tweeted on September 27, 2023
18 USC 242 is one of the laws I reference when I talk about “Enjoy your trial.” I first became aware of 18 USC 241 and 242 in 2003. Off and on I would bring it up, but few people said much about it.
While Judge Benitez’s ruling and reasoning were welcomed, it’s frustrating to many on the pro-gun side of the argument that judges continue to link the need for standard capacity magazines solely to domestic crimes. They should also be referring to citizens’ defense against government tyranny should the need ever arise as a justification for such magazines, as well as the possible need by citizens to protect the nation from foreign invasion sometime in the future.
Paul Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens Jr. surveyed almost 2,500 professors right in the middle of the Red Scare on whether or not they were self-censoring in light of the political climate. Nine percent of professors said they were, which by historical standards is really quite bad. Today, in 2023, that number is almost 90%.
And what was the self-censor rate in the USSR? My guess is 99.9% or higher. It is what communists do. They have to do this because the system is so broken it can only exist upon lies. The truth must be censored to avoid the abandonment and/or destruction of the communist organization.
A good rule of thumb is that the more acceptable censorship, the more the society depends upon lies to exist.
1. Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code § 32310.
2. Defendant Rob Bonta shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute.
This is the 9th Circuit. If upheld on appeal, initially this will affect the standard capacity magazine bans in California. Then, almost immediately, it will be used to attack the bans in Oregon and Washington. This will be is a good start.
The personal solution is easy. Make sure that someone can shoot back.
The public solution is time tested. We’ve done it for the last decade, and we’ve never had a school attacked where they had a public program of armed school staff.
The legal solution is simple. Make property owners responsible when they disarm the people who obey the law. If you stop me from protecting my family, then you become responsible for their safety.
The media solution is easy as well. Most mass-murderers kill innocent people so the mass-media will show us their face, their name, and their manifesto. Stop giving mass-murderers a multi-million-dollar publicity campaign.
All that might sound simple, but the political solution is harder. We have to ignore quack cures that have failed in the past.
The public solution is difficult, in part, because most politicians put up a vigorous fight when they are to lose even the smallest amount of power. And having an armed populous seriously shifts the power balance away from them.
The 2nd Amendment is broken and is killing us. #1 cause of death of children and teens. Piecemeal gun safety measures are insufficient, it’s been decades and the death rates are only escalating. It’s time to ban guns. The Constitution has been amended 27 times and it will be again when we finally find our voices, imagination, and courage to protect our kids and ban guns. If we can ban books, Muslims and Black history, we can certainly BAN GUNS.
People said chattel slavery would never be abolished til it was. They said Blacks and women would never have the vote, til they did. They say the 2nd Amendment will never be abolished but we know this, too, is untrue.
I am appalled that Joe Biden is putting the gun prohibition lobby on the White House payroll. I know that many pro-gun rights members of Congress are working on legislation to prohibit funding for this obnoxious scheme.
I wonder how much of their time will be spent keeping guns out of Hunter Biden’s hands now that he has been indicted on gun charges?
I wonder about something different than Gottlieb. I wonder if these people realize being on the government payroll with their jobs being the infringement of specific enumerated rights can be used as evidence at their trials. The same goes for those who vote for such an office.
When they passed Measure 114, Oregon voters made a legislative judgment about the serious and immediate threat that large capacity magazines pose to public safety, and that judgment is entitled to this court’s deference.
Interesting. I did not know that a popular vote by a 50.6% majority could override the constitution. That’s good to know.
But I’m sure it will come as a surprise to many in the deep south where opposition to desegregation of the schools would easily pass by popular vote.
And I can hardly wait for some state to ban Christianity and another state to require all people to attend a Christian church at least three days each month and tithe 10% of their income to the church. And don’t forget about required daily testimony of how climate change has affected you, while the neighboring state requires everyone to meet their daily minimum CO2 output to help prevent global cooling. And, of course, being accused of homosexuality is punishable by death without trial in one state and, in another state, all 3rd graders must pass a proficiency test in front of the class of four different homosexual acts in each of five different positions.
The popular vote will be entitled such deference just as is the case with the ban of magazines in common use.
This lawyer really must have crap for brains if they actually believe that claim. I’m thinking it is just another case of the “Big Lie” because no degreed lawyer can be that stupid and/or ignorant.
Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.
This sort of thing happens in research about crime and guns too.
Getting government out of the funding of most research* is probably part of the solution. Biases will always exist. But at least none of the biased parties will be spending essentially unlimited public money to produce garbage.
* I can see research directed at military objectives as being constitutional and appropriate.
I thought maybe this guy had come up with a unique variation of Markley’s Law with the use of the word “prosthetic”. But, no, that has already been used at least twice. Once in 2013 and again in 2016. So this guy is just one more of those tiresome examples of someone responding to our side having SCOTUS decisions by flinging childish insults.
It would appear that New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order banning the carrying of firearms in Albuquerque has had an unintended consequence: Sales in the city’s gun stores are booming.
People buy banned books because they are, or are about to be, banned. The same applies to guns.
In this case the buying more guns in the face of a ban to carry them in public doesn’t make quite as much sense. But maybe they were buying them so they could carry them in public in defiance of their criminal governor.
You would think that a politician capable of getting elected governor would have a better sense of human nature. For someone that opposed to gun ownership one would think she would not engage in behavior that would, obviously, increase gun ownership and public carry. But, yet, she did.
People are strange. Rationality is just a thin veneer over a whirl of emotions. And many people don’t even have that veneer.
The progressive activists who run the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in Democratic administrations see civil-rights statutes as their license to overhaul the nation’s police departments and other institutions under the guise of “systemic racism.” There is no reason, however, why a Republican administration could not invoke them for their proper purpose — protecting the federal rights of all Americans.
Obviously, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D., N.M.) and her subordinates have conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Americans in New Mexico in the free exercise and enjoyment of their Second Amendment rights. Indeed, her acknowledgment that she expects to be challenged in court underscores both her criminal intent and the fact that the rights she has decided to “suspend” are well established in constitutional law.
The BATF has been having a rough time recently in the courts with its attempts to redefine terms already well-defined in the law. But the BSCA gets around that obstacle and opens the door to new regulations that will cost lives.
Banning high school shooting teams and creating a comprehensive national gun registry makes the long game for gun control advocates clear—they are working to eliminate legal gun ownership in America.
Lujan Grisham’s diagnosis of the problem is surely correct; her proposed solution, however, is astoundingly misguided. The governor has leveraged an emergency health law to suspend a right protected by state statute, the state constitution, and Supreme Court precedent. Whether that right should exist is beside the point; it does exist in New Mexico today, pursuant not only to court decisions but also democratically enacted laws. By suspending it unilaterally, Lujan Grisham has claimed an alarming new power to revoke well-established individual rights by executive order. And she has done so in the most blundering way possible, ensuring a backlash that will only empower citizens, activists, and politicians who view all firearm restrictions as an existential threat to personal liberty.
A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order in a Second Amendment Foundation challenge of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s Sept. 8 edict suspending the constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County.
District Judge David H. Urias issued the TRO, which extends to Oct. 3, when a hearing on the preliminary injunction request will be held. The TRO was effective immediately.
The executive order was dropped last Friday, SAF filed a lawsuit and had it blocked in three business days.
Take THAT Governor Grisham!
I still want her prosecuted. But that isn’t a political reality. Yet.
Why do Republicans still fight for their beliefs knowing they will be wiped out, like any other minority group in history? Their beliefs are archaic and improper, so why fight against the advancement of the human species?
You have to wonder… Yes, it is crazy talk. But, it could be Russian or other bad guy trying to stir things up. Or it could be just some troll getting their jollies. But it also has a small chance of being someone sincerely believing what they are saying and not afraid to say, “the quiet part out loud”. Hitler’s Mein Kampf wasn’t taken serious by the majority of people when it was first written either but within a few years the mindset took over a nation.
The panel of judges, which is made up of two Bush nominees and one Trump nominee, asserted that it is inappropriate for President Biden, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the FBI, and the surgeon general to exert pressure on social media platforms to remove content they deemed troublesome.
I haven’t read the ruling yet but I’m disappointed it doesn’t apply to every representative of all government entities. But, it is a decent start down a long path. Does anyone know, assuming the ruling stands, whether the administration will have to pay reparations for this infringement?
Somewhere on that path I want the courts to issue a similar ruling stating it is inappropriate for a government representatives to exert pressure on gun stores to remove guns and other arms they deem troublesome.