Category: Informational

Brushbeater: Xiegu X6100 Modern Para Set

NC Scout at Brushbeater talks about the Xiegu X6100 radio as a simple, self-contained HF radio unit.

If you search the Para Set, you’ll find an incredibly neat piece of history from the genesis of the clack and dagger era: WWII and the early part of the Cold War. Spies relied upon one way messages transmitted via Shortwave (HF Radio) and encrypted with One Time Pads that also had the ability to transmit should the need arise. For that reason they required a simple, self contained, low power radio that met the needs. What they got was known as the Para Set.

Having a receive and transmit coverage between 3 and 7.6mHz or so in two selectable bands, we’d come to know this in later years as the Amateur 80m (3.5-4mHz) and 40m (7-7.3mhz) bands for Night and Day use, respectively. And while these weren’t meant for civilian use, some inevitably did find their way into civilian hands in later years with Hams even creating reproduction kits.But the Para Set was really a special tool beyond the novelty of its history. It was a compact, self contained tool. No cables necessary for a separate tuner – an antenna matching unit was built in, as was the power source. This made for a radio that could also easily be hidden and otherwise camoflaged. Rather than the large capacity base stations pumping out thousands of watts safe from the Radio Direction Finding (RDF) hunter killer teams of the Gestapo and Waffen SS, the Para Set maintained a diminutive 5 watts maximum output – enough for a quick burst of CW Morse code.

These days I get a lot of questions from radio operators and guys looking to develop their communications capability past the Sustainment and Tactical or Inter-team roles into the Clandestine end of things, meaning HF. Much of my early work focused on HF as a means to communicate over long distances coordinating different groups, and in particular, utilizing Near Vertical Incidence Skywave (NVIS) as a technique for reliability and mitigating the RDF threat. Those early articles are all found in the Guerrilla Dispatch Volumes 1 and 2, including some excellent work by my close friend Historian on antenna design and a Master Class on NVIS propagation and RF theory. Don’t worry…I wrote a lengthy layman’s piece on it as well in Volume 1.With that said and going back to the question above, most broach the topic asking what to buy before they ask the how. I totally get it, and I’m doing what I can to supply that option. The Xiegu X6100 is in many ways the modern incarnation of that same Para Set from eras gone by. Small, self contained, with a large display screen and extremely simple user interface. Perhaps the best feature is the large waterfall display which allows the operator to see signals the same way they would on a panadapter of an SDR. I’ve found this reduces the learning curve for newer radio operators. The radio features 5 watts maximum output and can work in all modes – including SSB voice (often referred to as ‘phone’ by Hams) and CW. In particular its become a very popular option for the Summits on the Air (SOTA) crowd and the FT8 family of digital modes. For that reason it was a natural addition to the Brushbeater Store.

At its entry-level cost along with its big brother the G90 (with 20w output), these radios are about as close to plug and play as its gets for getting into HF. And their track record thus far has proven them to be rugged and durable, quieting some of the harshest of critics. I have both in my arsenal and have found myself reliant on them over some of my older, higher-powered rigs due to the features and simplicity and overall quality, and I think you will too. The Xiegu X6100 in particular is every bit the modern day Para Set and I’m very excited to offer them to our community.

TFB: District Court Vacates ATF 80% Receiver Rule

Washington State has its own law banning 80% receivers, but in this article The Firearms Blog talks about the recent ruling (June 30, 2023) where a court in the Northern District of Texas determined that the ATF, in its 80% receiver rule, had exceeded its statutory authority and vacated the Final Rule. Because the court relied on statutory authority, the court did not make any Constitutional determination on the law as related to the Second Amendment.

The hits just keep on coming in the lawsuits against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF took their most recent L on June 30th in the case VanDerStok v. Garland in the Northern District of Texas (case number 4:22-cv-00691-O). Let’s go through this decision, what it means, and what it may signal for other issues.

Background

If you are reading articles like this, you probably know the backstory, but here is a short refresher. Homemade guns have always been legal in the United States. The frame or received of a firearm is, according to US law, the regulated part. That is why it bears the serial number. 

Over the last dozen years or so there has been an expanding world of people who want to make their own guns. Rather than buying a complete, serialized receiver from an FFL, enthusiasts started converting so-called 80% receivers into complete receivers. Enterprising companies began selling 80% receivers with parts and jigs which made it easy to create a 100% receiver. Now, the ATF hates it when anything is easy, so it was only a matter of time until additional regulations arrived.

ATF Rule 2021R-05F purported to redefine “frame or receiver” by expanding that definition. Most importantly, it changed the definition to “make[] clear that the “frame” or “receiver” includes a partially complete frame or receiver, including a parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver[.]” This Rule was challenged in the courts, and (spoiler alert) it did not go well for ATF.

The Decision

Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas heard the case and issued this decision. One of the first battles was over a preliminary injunction, which would prevent ATF from enforcing this rule during the lawsuit. The ATF lost that round. More plaintiffs joined in the fight and the scope of the preliminary injunction kept growing. 

Eventually, both sides filed motions for summary judgment. This motion says to the court “Even if you take all of the facts that the other side says are true, we would win, so you might as well just call it now and not have a trial.” Unsurprisingly, this went very badly indeed for the ATF.

District Court Vacates ATF 80% Receiver Rule (Analysis)

The Court’s logic was pretty simple; a part cannot be both a receiver, and not yet a receiver at the same time. ATF’s entire premise of regulating an 80% lower when it is sold with jigs or tools as a completed receiver makes no sense because it is (by ATF’s own admission) still not actually a receiver.

“As the Court previously explained, the issue in this case is whether ATF may properly regulate a component as a “frame or receiver” even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver. It may not. Logic dictates that a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and receiver at the same time. Defendants’ reliance on that logical contradiction is fatal to their argument.”

This decision did not need to reach other Constitutional issues presented. Courts must dispose of cases on grounds other than Constitutional ones when they can do so. In this particular case, the Court found ATF’s position so clearly wrong that no other Constitutional grounds needed to be addressed.

“Because the Court concludes that the ATF has clearly and without question acted in excess of its statutory authority and that this claim is dispositive, the Court declines to address the constitutional questions presented.”

Happy Independence Day

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia

Button Gwinnett

Lyman Hall

George Walton

North Carolina

William Hooper

Joseph Hewes

John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.

Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts

John Hancock

Maryland

Samuel Chase

William Paca

Thomas Stone

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Harrison

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Francis Lightfoot Lee

Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Franklin

John Morton

George Clymer

James Smith

George Taylor

James Wilson

George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney

George Read

Thomas McKean

New York

William Floyd

Philip Livingston

Francis Lewis

Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton

John Witherspoon

Francis Hopkinson

John Hart

Abraham Clark

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett

William Whipple

Massachusetts

Samuel Adams

John Adams

Robert Treat Paine

Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins

William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman

Samuel Huntington

William Williams

Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire

Matthew Thornton

The Area Intelligence Handbook

Mike Shelby, intelligence analyst and author, has recently published a second book The Area Intelligence Handbook. If you’ve heard Mike talk before or attended one of his training classes, then you are probably familiar with his push for people to do their own area study in order to direct their preparedness in a useful direction. Here is a short except from the forward to his new book.

…a [particular large scale disaster] won’t kill you, but the follow effects could. These follow-on effects that occur at your doorstep, on your street, and in your neighborhood deserve your due diligence.

What I find is that those in the preparedness community are too focused on the strategic picture and not focused enough on the tactical picture. Too many get target-fixated on what’s happening in China, or in space, or in Washington, D.C., while ignoring their local situation. These people know the names of a hundred Congressmen but not one person on their city council. They know more about Nancy Pelosi’s husband’s boyfriend than they do about their local fire department. They can tell you about the latest YouTube prediction of mass starvation, but can’t tell you which gangs are active in their county. I think this is a problem.

Enter the solution. An Area Study helps us develop the tactical picture. What are the second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-order effects, and so on, from an EMP attack? How is the cyber attack on the gas pipeline going to affect your community? How will hyperinflation push threats to your doorstep? What’s your neighborhood’s population density? How many fighting age males live in the area? Which of these could become an ally or pose a threat to you?…Unfortunately, instead of developing local intelligence, we’ve been encouraged to buy buy buy stuff. Just fill that bottomless pit of worry with gear. It might fill up eventually.

This misunderstanding is why Joe’s bug out bag weighs 70 pounds, but he hasn’t compiled an Area Study. Joe’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t have a plan. He does, it’s just not a very good one. Joe hasn’t conducted a route study of where he’s going during an emergency. He’s blind to the threats and hazards between Points A and B, he doesn’t know police are going to be blocking the road to his destination, and he hasn’t considered any contingencies — what to do when things go unexpectedly wrong, and they will. And if Joe knew there were a dozen like-minded people in his community, including one with a small farm just outside of town, then Joe might completely change his bad plan to bug out into the unknown to a less bad plan…I wrote this book for Joe.

Mike has written extensively online about area studies as well as making available many videos about the process. This book gathers it all into one handy book. As many others have written, countries tend to decline slowly with occasional more rapid slips. As the USA slips from its lofty heights due to the greed and corruption of its elites, there are many ways the decline may manifest with various effects on your life and lifestyle. Use this book to think about your future and help you plan to make it through.

Radio Contra Ep. 228: Deep State Democrats in Panic

NC Scout of Brushbeater talks with Bob Griswold of Ready Made Resources about the panic that the deep state oligarchy and the Democrat Party are apparently in, their desperate measures, the possible next moves and what to do about it. Localism is the answer.

Radio Contra Ep. 228: Deep State Democrats in Panic

GOA: Gun Industry Writes To Congress As Imminent Ban Threatens 40 Million Firearms

From Gun Owners of America, GOA: Gun Industry Writes To Congress As Imminent Ban Threatens 40 Million Firearms :

On June 1st, the Biden Pistol Ban is set to go into effect. This rule, concocted by the bureaucrats at ATF, criminalizes ownership of an estimated 40 million firearms currently in possession by law-abiding citizens.

According to the final rule, gun owners who possess braced firearms will have to destroy, reconfigure, register, and turn in their firearms to ATF, or face NFA violations which include $250,000 in fines and a hefty prison sentence.

This rule will have some of the most wide-reaching impacts nationwide compared to other ATF administrative rulemaking actions. In comparison, ATF’s bump stock rule was estimated to have affected 520,000 Americans, whereas this pistol brace ruling affects 80 times more law-abiding citizens.

In response, the No Compromise Alliance sent a letter signed by notable firearms industry companies to Congress.

Among the undersigned are notable firearms industry companies such as Rifle Dynamics, Kahr Arms Group, KCI USA, Tippmann Arms, and more.

Additionally, two other letters were sent to Congress, with notable people of influence throughout the firearms community – representing more than 30 million viewers – and local ranges & shops that are bound to be affected by ATF’s overreach.

While these letters certainly make a statement, Gun Owners of America is working on all fronts to defeat the ATF’s pistol brace rule before it goes into effect.

GOA has a lawsuit in the 5th Circuit with Texas AG Ken Paxton. This circuit is the same that recently overturned the ATF’s bump stock rule in January of 2023.

In addition, GOA has backed legislation targeting the root of the issue with the SHORT Act. The act itself would remove Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS), and ATF’s favorite, “Any Other Weapons” (AOWs) from the unconstitutional regulation of the National Firearms Act.

The NFA is the law that ATF derives its regulatory authority from on the brace issue, so the SHORT Act aims to stop the ATF by removing its power over such items in the first place.

Lastly, GOA has fought hard with our allies in Congress to bring the ATF’s pistol brace rule under scrutiny via the Congressional Review Act.

For those unfamiliar, the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to file a joint resolution of disapproval, which would overturn agency rulemaking.

This is where we need your help. 

With our legal fight against Biden and his ATF coming down to the wire, please call your Senators and Representatives and let them know to support the Joint Resolution for Congressional disapproval of the ATF’s rulemaking.

You can call your elected officials at (202) 224-3121

Let them know to support S.J. RES. 20 if they’re in the Senate & H.J. RES. 20 if they’re in the House of Representatives.

WPC: WA Property Tax Increase Bill Introduced

From the Washington Policy Center comes Just in time to avoid 2/3 vote requirement, new property tax increase bill introduced

It must be the last two weeks of the session. Yet another bill to overturn a voter-approved law was introduced just today. This one is a massive property tax increase with 20 Senate sponsors. Under the title “Providing state and local property tax reform,” SB 5770 would change the voter-approved property tax growth factor for the state and local governments from 1% to 3% while also changing the definition of inflation to grow faster by using the CPI instead of IPD measure.

And just for fun, the new tax increase bill was introduced just outside of the 10-day window under the constitution that would have required a 2/3 vote to advance the bill. Per Article 2, Section 36 of the state constitution:

“No bill shall be considered in either house unless the time of its introduction shall have been at least ten days before the final adjournment of the legislature, unless the legislature shall otherwise direct by a vote of two thirds of all the members elected to each house, said vote to be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the journal, or unless the same be at a special session.”

At least SB 5770 was introduced as a complete bill instead of the prior practice of using a blank Title Only bill to get around the 2/3 vote restrictions. The Senate Rules adopted earlier this year banned the use of Title Only bills.

After decades of following policy debates in Washington, I’ve learned that you need a specialty state-specific dictionary to understand legislative phrases. Words mean different things here. For example: An income tax in Washington means “excise tax” and “balancing the tax code” means increasing the property tax for everyone.

Washington State Senate Passes “Assault Weapons” Ban

From The Hill:

The Washington state Senate has passed a bill to ban the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, bringing the state one step closer to becoming one of the few in the country that have instituted general assault weapon bans.

The bill, which must now return to the House for concurrence on some of the amendments made to the legislation, would ban the “manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of any assault weapon.”

It would take effect immediately if signed by the governor and ban at least 60 different types of assault weapons.

The legislation provides a number of notable exceptions to the ban.

The new rules would not apply to weapons that are already possessed by a person in the state or those who inherit weapons. It also would allow law enforcement agencies to continue to purchase such weapons.

Even with the exceptions, the regulations would institute one of the most comprehensive statewide bans on assault weapons in the country…

From Bearing Arms, “Assault weapons” ban clears WA State Senate, 2A groups promise legal challenge

A bill banning the sale and manufacture of so-called assault weapons has cleared its last major legislative hurdle in Washington State, but Second Amendment groups are already vowing to bring the fight over the gun ban to the courts if and when HB 1240 is signed by Gov. Jay Inslee.

State senators worked overtime over the weekend to clear the gun ban off their calendar, ultimately approving the bill on a party-line vote with only a couple of minor changes.

A floor amendment allows for gun manufacturers to sell inventory already in stock prior to Jan. 1, 2023, and only to out-of-state clientele, for 90 days after the bill goes into effect.

“I wasn’t able to support today’s legislation, because I think that we took away from some of the important things that we need in everyday life, which is additional treatment facilities. We need more mental health available resources for everybody,” said Sen Jeff Wilson, (R ) 19th District, Longview.

Because the bill was amended in the Senate, it must return to the House for further consideration. The 2023 legislative session is scheduled to adjourn on Sunday, April 23.

I’m sure that House Democrats will hold a concurrence vote well before the legislature adjourns in a couple of weeks, and Inslee has already pledged to sign the gun ban bill into law. This isn’t the only infringement to the Second Amendment rights of Washingtonians that’s likely to be enacted before April 23rd either. Last Friday the state Senate also gave its approval to HB 1143, which would establish a “permit to purchase” system complete with mandatory firearm training that every would-be gun owner must possess before they can lawfully purchase or receive a firearm as well as a mandatory 10-day waiting period on all gun sales.

Inslee’s sure to sign that bill into law as well, and has already been touting the supposed benefits of a gun ban on Twitter…

WPC: Coming SCOTUS decision could be big for Eastern Washington

The Washington Policy Center discusses US Supreme Court case Sackett vs EPA on the extend of the EPA’s power to regulate land that gets wet.

The Sackett family has spent the past 15 years in the courts disputing the Environmental Protection Agency’s blocking their right to build a home on land they own near Priest Lake, Idaho.

This past October, the U.S. Supreme Court opened its doors for the public to listen in on oral arguments for the first time in 21/2 years since the original COVID lockdown in March 2020. The first case on the docket was theirs, Sackett v. EPA, the outcome of which will have profound implications for the future of rural communities in Eastern Washington and across the country.

The EPA alleges the Sackett’s residential lot is a federally protected wetland under EPA jurisdiction. Sackett v. EPA asks the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of the EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. The court’s decision should of course be the final say on whether the Sacketts can build their proposed home, but it will also have sweeping implications on whether the EPA can expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include any semi-soggy lowland, ditch or parcel of land across the country.

Many will remember the saga of the Obama administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States – or WOTUS – rule. As a young staffer on Capitol Hill at the time, seared into my memory is how serious the regulatory uncertainty was for the agricultural community under the proposed rule, threatening to turn every ditch, puddle, or creek into a federally protected “navigable waterway.” The drastic expansion of the EPA’s jurisdiction in the rule was characterized as one of the most egregious oversteps by the federal government in history. Fortunately, the courts agreed and blocked its implementation.

Yet predictably the federal government continues to do its best to exert its regulatory might. Even as we await the court’s decision on Sackett, the Biden administration has barreled forward with their own rulemaking – essentially, WOTUS 2.0 – by introducing a new rule on the last business day of 2022 to expand the definition of navigable waters and again threaten rural America’s way of life.

While the Obama WOTUS rule was blocked by the courts, the Biden administration has now sought to codify a serpentine rule that avoids the legal landmines of the original WOTUS.

There was simply no reason for the Biden administration to move forward on this exercise when they knew the court would be issuing a ruling on this very matter. It only serves to cause further uncertainty for the American farmer and rancher.

Unfortunately, it’s not just bad ideas at the federal-level that are rearing their ugly heads to come after our water and threaten our agricultural lands. Legislation similar to the riparian “buffer bill” introduced during the last legislative session in Olympia has been reintroduced this week. The bill (HB 1838) – which would have exponentially cut off productive farmlands across the state while exempting urban areas – faced overwhelming public outcry and eventually did not receive a vote. Yet, it’s back again.

As Washington Policy Center’s new Eastern Washington director, it is my charge to help tell of the impacts of these misguided measures and to ensure the communities east of the Cascades have a voice in Olympia. Why is it that those who decry “big agriculture” and so-called “factory farms” are the same people who do everything they can to put the family farmer out of business?

At the core of Eastern Washington’s economy and identity is agriculture – our region’s farmers feed the country and the world. Our elected leaders in Olympia and Washington, D.C., must recognize that.

I was proud to work on efforts supporting the Sacketts’ case and was humbled to hear the arguments made before the Supreme Court in person this past October. It is my hope the court will finally provide the certainty rural America has long deserved and the victory the Sackett family has waited too long for.

GOA: Hearings for WA Preemption Repeal, “Assault Weapon” Ban, and More

Gun Owners of America has posted about hearings for Washington State bills, taking place simultaneously for House and Senate bills so as to prevent gun owners from weighing in on both.

Washington Patriots, we are in the fight of a lifetime for your 2nd Amendment Rights! The radical Left is fast streaming a vote to destroy your God-given rights with multiple anti-gun bills to be heard on Tuesday, Jan. 17th  in the House Civil Rights & Judiciary and Senate Law and Justice committees.

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee (10:30 AM on Tuesday, January 17th) 

  • HB 1178 – Would repeal firearms preemption in Washington. This would turn Washington into a patchwork quilt of gun control laws as anti-gun cities would be free to enact their own gun control ordinances.
  • HB 1143 – This bill creates a draconian “permit to purchase” requirement for all firearm sales in Washington and would require mandatory training, among other things.
  • HB 1144 – Creates a mandatory training requirement to purchase firearms that would need to be renewed every five years.
  • HB 1240 –  The so-called “assault weapons” ban that would criminalize possession of over 65 semi-automatic rifles

Senate Law & Justice Committee (10:30 AM on Tuesday, January 17th) 

  • SB 5078 – This bill would eliminate immunity for firearms manufacturers, placing the entire gun industry at risk for frivolous lawsuits. If enacted into law, it could lead to the entire firearms manufacturing industry being sued out of existence.

Friends, your constitutionally-protected rights have never been in such peril in Washington. That’s why I need you to take action by sending a message to the committee members to oppose these bills and signing up to testify on Tuesday.

To testify, please follow these instructions as modified from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF): 

What: House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee
When: January 17, 2023
Time: 10:30 a.m. (PST)
Location: In-Person House Hearing Room A or Virtual

Instructions: To sign up to testify in opposition to these bills or to submit written testimony against this egregious legislation, click on this link and follow the directions below:

  1. Select “Civil Rights & Judiciary” in the “Committee” box.
  2. Select “01/17/23 10:30 AM” in the “Meetings” box.
  3. Select the following bills “HB 1178, HB 1143, HB 1144, and HB 1240” under “Select agenda item.”
  4. Select either written testimony or sign up to testify virtually under “Select type of testimony.”
  5. Fill out registration page.

What: Senate Law and Justice Committee
When: January 17, 2023
Time: 10:30 AM (PST)
Location: In-Person Senate Hearing Room 4 or Virtual

Instructions: To sign up to testify in opposition to these bills or to submit written testimony against this egregious legislation, click on this link and follow the directions below:

  1. Select “Law & Justice” in the “Committee” box.
  2. Select “01/17/23 10:30 AM in the “Meetings” box.
  3. Select “SB 5078” under “Select agenda item.”
  4. Select either written testimony or sign up to testify virtually under “Select type of testimony.”
  5. Fill out registration page.

This is devastating to the people of Washington! The anti-gun Left will stop at nothing and will continue their unlawful attack against your 2nd Amendment rights if we do not stand and fight.

The time to act has never been greater than it is now, so please send a message to the committee members (by using the form above) to OPPOSE the above bills and sign up to testify. 

On the federal level, the ATF has changed its rule on AR pistols with braces, making them illegal unless you register them. In the video below, Colion Noir talks about it.

Of Two Minds: What’s Behind the Global Erosion of Civil Liberties, Privacy and Property Rights?Of Two Minds:

Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds blog writes What’s Behind the Global Erosion of Civil Liberties, Privacy and Property Rights?

Hierarchical power structures like city-states arose as problem-solving solutions, not just for the elites who benefited from the concentration of wealth and power but for the citizenry. This dynamic underpins the analysis presented in my recent book Global Crisis, National Renewal: when nation-states and global hierarchies no longer solve the key problems of their populaces, they dissolve and are replaced by some new arrangement.

It’s easy to see how hierarchies benefit the leaders / elites at the top, but there’s always a trade-off to the populace ceding power/control to elites: we will cede control over our lives in exchange for benefits we cannot gain by ourselves, starting with security from invasion and starvation, i.e. the existential threats posed by Nature and other human organizations.

Over time, as energy surpluses and knowledge increased, city-states aggregated into nation-states and empires. These larger organizations were able to solve problems on a larger scale than city-states.

When these entities could no longer solve existential problems (surpluses diminished, elites failed to provide successful leadership, etc.), they eroded and then collapsed, and were replaced with some other more successful organizational arrangement.

Over time, the citizenry of some regions began expanding the benefits nation-states and their elites were expected to provide in exchange for power: the state was expected to secure the rights to individuals’ property and various civil liberties relating to the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, freedom of worship, and having a say in national decisions.

Globally, these basic human rights are being eroded by state-elite over-reach and consolidation of power beyond what the citizenry agreed upon. For example, the citizenry ceded power to the state to protect individuals’ privacy from the surveillance and information-gathering of both the state and private interests.

As Richard Bonugli and I discuss in our podcast on Eroding Civil Liberties and Property Rights, these privacy statutes are still on the books but they are routinely disregarded by both state agencies and private-sector interests with little functional enforcement by state agencies tasked with protecting the citizens’ rights to privacy.

Big Tech routinely harvests private data for profit with little oversight, state agencies collect private data beyond their mandated scope and mobile phones gather private information which others manage to collect or access.

Property rights are also being eroded.Civil forfeiture enables local and national governments to expropriate individuals’ private property without due process, in effect declaring them guilty and effecting punishment (taking their money/property) and then forcing them to prove their innocence via a lengthy, costly, Kafkaesque process.

War by other means now includes sanctions and expropriation of individuals’ assets, not just the assets of other states or state entities (central banks, state-owned corporations, etc.)

What is driving this global erosion of the most basic civil liberties and property rights? As I describe in my book Resistance, Revolution, Liberation, all states share the same ontology, which is to respond to any threats or challenges by increasing their reach and control.

In other words, all states share the same teleological Prime Directive: always expand the state’s control and power. No state has the institutional memory or means to reduce the state’s reach, control or power.

The only limit on state expansion is the citizenry’s resistance to the loss of civil liberties, property rights and having a say in decisions which affect the entire citizenry. If the citizenry do nothing to protect their rights as individuals and communities, the state will nibble away at these until they exist only in name, not in the real world.

The first essential step is to recognize the erosion as real and consequential. Richard and I do our best to further this in our podcast Charles Hugh Smith on Eroding Civil Liberties and Property Rights (31:35 min).

The second essential step is to recognize how the spectacles of “news” and entertainment distract our attention from this erosion of basic rights. Before we know it, we’re in prisons without bars and grateful to get a questionnaire about how we like the torture (i.e. the “entertainment”)…(continues with pictures and more links)

Radio Contra Ep. 209: Localism, Training and Building Culture with Bryce Colbert of Intrepid Tactics

NC Scout of Brushbeater talks to Bryce Colbert of Intrepid Tactics about localism, training, and building culture in episode 209 of Radio Contra.

Radio Contra Ep. 209: Localism, Training and Building Culture with Bryce Colbert of Intrepid Tactics

Episode 209. I’m joined by Bryce Colbert, 3rd Special Forces Group Veteran and owner of Intrepid Tactics to talk localism, training philosophy, building a resilient culture, and arming good people with knowledge for rough times in America’s future.

Jonathan Turley: Fifth Circuit Rejects Bump Stock Ban

From attorney Jonathan Turley comes this article on the Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals court rejecting the ATF ban on bump stocks.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down a major opinion in Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016, ruling 13-3 that the ATF ban on bump stocks is unlawful. The en banc decision found that a bump stock may be many things but it is not a machine gun.

On December 18, 2018, the ATF issued a rule that bump stock would now be considered unlawful as machine guns and gave bump stock owners 90 days to surrender the devices. After that deadline, possession would be treated as a federal crime. The specific statement read, in part:

The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices — meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics — are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

On January 6, 2023, the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision rejecting the rule. It explained the technical aspects for the case as well as the clear shift in interpretation by the ATF:

“A bump stock is a firearm attachment that allows a shooter to harness the natural recoil of a semi-automatic weapon to quickly re-engage the trigger after firing, enabling him to shoot at an increased rate of speed. When ATF first considered the type of bump stocks at issue here, it understood that they were not machineguns. ATF maintained this position for over a decade, issuing many interpretation letters to that effect to members of the public.”

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in her majority opinion that “[p]ublic pressure to ban bump stocks was tremendous” after the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. However, “[a] plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”

The majority further explained:

The Government’s regulation violates these principles. As an initial matter, it purports to allow ATF—rather than Congress—to set forth the scope of criminal prohibitions. Indeed, the Government would outlaw bump stocks by administrative fiat even though the very same agency routinely interpreted the ban on machineguns as not applying to the type of bump stocks at issue here. Nor can we say that the statutory definition unambiguously supports the Government’s interpretation. As noted above, we conclude that it unambiguously does not. But even if we are wrong, the statute is at least ambiguous in this regard. And if the statute is ambiguous, Congress must cure that ambiguity, not the federal courts.

The holding was supported by a rule of lenity that “penal laws are to be construed strictly.” She noted that, as in United States v. Wiltberger, the Court had long followed the rule which Chief Justice Marshall described as “founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.”

Thirteen judges agreed with the conclusion though twelve (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson) reversed on lenity grounds while eight members (Judges Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson) reversed on the ground that federal law unambiguously fails to cover non-mechanical bump stocks…(article continues)