Jump to content

gtr2009

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

383 profile views

gtr2009's Achievements

Member

Member (2/24)

  1. Oh that is a very good point, that's about the only thing that makes any sense.
  2. https://www.25newsnow.com/2024/01/17/peoria-police-chief-talks-safety-after-facebook-marketplace-transaction-turns-deadly/ Anybody know from which state the CCL holder hailed? This is interesting - several other articles mention his license "allowed him to carry from state to state". But as far as I know IL honors no other states. However, they let the guy go with no charges. I'm pretty surprised, but pleasantly so.
  3. Maybe it's too late, but doesn't this passage mean if you transfer your weapon to a legal entity (business) that you can bypass the law? It also makes me wonder - if you already have your guns in a trust, I also do not see any express requirement that trusts register items, either, only people.
  4. I'm with Mike on this one. (highlighted the money shot) My rule is: For major "narrative" stories whatever the MSM has reported is reliably the one thing you can be sure did not happen, or did not happen exactly the way they said, or the because is wrong, or the consequences are misleading, etc. Obviously, "high school won football game" doesn't apply here.
  5. Sure, I agree, it might not meet some specific literal definition, but that isn't the point. Good rhetoric need not be true, or specifically accurate - that would be dialectic, and dialectic hasn't convinced any mass of people of anything, ever. It's one of the main failures of the cucked, boomer, "oh noes! that's not civil discourse" attitude that has allowed the left to take over almost every institution of note in the US. "We might have lost, but by golly gee whiz, nobody can say we didn't lose gracefully!".
  6. Looks like the Black Flag Speech Gestapo is trying to tell us we can't talk about the ISP Gestapo. Any rank and file ISP officer that enforces any unconstitutional law is just as guilty and worthy of contempt as Pritzker on down. In fact, I would argue they are more worthy because without people willing to enforce such laws, Pritzker and the Dems could pass whatever laws they want and it wouldn't make any difference at all. The Sheriffs spoke out, where is the rest of law enforcement speaking out? Where are the unions speaking out? I looked long at hard at going into a public service type career, perhaps law enforcement, but at the end of the day I concluded it was rather pointless as I was not willing to compromise my morality and ethics, and there was no way to do the job without treating people in a way I know to be immoral and wrong. This is just another example of that playing out. I work in IT, and I did a contracting gig for Chicago Public Schools once. One day, in an office room of about 5 people, a new guy showed up and wasn't talking to anyone much but was very busy doing things in the Microsoft Exchange email system. I inquired about what he was doing and got the polite runaround. Eventually, some of my help was required by this guy and I figured out what he was doing. There had been a FOIA request and some investigation into something important (I can't remember anymore, something about fraud and contracts by CPS employees, it was in the news at the time). This guy had been tasked with running searches on all emails in the system and deleting everything related to this investigation, which is completely illegal, and even if it wasn't, he was helping CPS hide malfeasance and immoral behavior from the public. I refused to help and quit on the spot. How many ISP Officers and employees do you surmise will quit instead of enforcing this law? I have a pretty good idea it is less than 1, but it should be most of them, even the IT people tasked with building the registration website.
  7. Oh this is awesome. I really didn't think they'd do it and let him make the Bruen argument in such a high profile case.
  8. The all 9s code is not a code that opens the safe, it's a code to put the system into Recovery Mode.
  9. No that's the ProLogic - I believe most of the safes in question have the "SafeLogic" which are simpler devices. To reset it you unplug the key pad from the logic unit, press the reset button with a paper clip to drain the capacitors, hold the reset button down with the paper clip while plugging the keypad back in. Now your 2 codes are back to factory default. Here is SecuRam with a video explaining it below. The ProLogic - not sure what to think about it, it's arguably even worse. It has an encryption code that you can configure that encrypts communication between the keypad and the control unit. (as usual 99% of people probably won't change it from the default of 685198). Then there is a special "recovery code" of 999999 that puts the lock into recovery mode. In order to change this code you have to call SecuRam tech support and get a time limited special code and go through a little process. Once in recovery mode it will display an alphanumeric code. You take that alphanumeric code + the encryption code and put it into SecuRam's authorization code generator software and it issues a one time use code good for 20 minutes that will reset the lock to factory default. It's not clear to me whether they actually hand that software out to locksmiths or it's just what they use internally but only licensed locksmiths are allowed to call and get a reset code. Either way - If you have a ProLogic or ScanLogic unless you change your encryption code to something only you know, or gone through the cumbersome process of calling SecuRam to change your recovery code (or both), they can let anyone into your safe even if you've changed both the super user and user codes. Also, yeah I thought about buying one of the locks and getting the soldering iron out and having a go. But there are more experienced firmware hackers out there than me probably already at it, we'll see!
  10. The existence of a master code is not secret. There is a master code and a user code. (It's not a master code in the sense of a hard coded backdoor, think of it like 2 user codes) The manual to the SecuRam lock explains this. Anybody who bought one of these safes and was only provided with 1 code could have already determined there was a code to the safe they did not possess. My 2nd point was just addressing what some people were postulating, that there is a 3rd code nobody has ever heard of and that nobody has ever found. It's plausible enough - we've seen it happen in both consumer and enterprise networking equipment enough times over the years. But again, not really the issue here.
  11. Funny thing if that turned out to be true - Liberty Safe having the code and handing it over is the best way to get its contents suppressed, maybe this is just a service they are providing! But more seriously, it's a SAFE company. The fact they did not go to bat for their customers and force a subpoena, and then fight it in court is truly Bud Light level idiocy. They could have turned this into very positive press for their target customer base. As far as consenting to open a safe for LE, the answer is never, ever, consent to anything, at any time. You have nothing to gain by talking or consenting, ever. Every word is a word that could be twisted, taken out of context, misheard, etc. Same with any objects that might be in a safe. An easy example is what if you had a random .50 cal round you bought at a gun show for the novelty that fell in the bottom 20 years ago, which is now illegal in your state.
  12. Because it's described in the publicly accessible product manual on SecuRam's website. None of this is secret. The only questions are 1) Did LibertySafe change the default master codes for each lock, and if so, to what did they change it? If they changed them all to unique codes then why are they only only offering to delete it and not hand it over to their customers? and 2) Is there a 3rd secret backdoor code hardcoded into the firmware? Maybe there, maybe there isn't - and that's not really the issue here and would be SecuRam's probably anyway, nothing LibertySafe could do about that.
  13. I don't think people get the real issue with this, at least if my understanding here is correct. The SecuRam lock holds 2 codes, master and user. They sent you the user code along with your safe and kept the master code for themselves. Now, they are offering to "delete" the master code from their "database". That still leaves you without the master code to your safe. So we have to ponder why would they offer to just delete the master code and not actually give it to everyone, and then delete it? The most likely answer is that the master codes are not unique, so by handing you your master code they're also handing you the code to everyone else's safe (or some subset of safes). This also means many LE already have the master code to your safe. There is a reset procedure you can perform on the SecuRam lock to erase the master/user codes and start fresh, however, you have to remove one of those stickers that "voids your warranty if removed". They also have not shown any transparency at all about how they will "delete" your master code from their system. It's a long involved process to do such a thing to a system that was originally not designed that way. Are they going to securely wipe all drives that have ever held that data? Is it held in the cloud by a 3rd party web service? Are they deleting all of their backups for said server, as well? Does the 3rd party service have the ability to delete their backups? Will they erase or zero the free space on the drives that held the backups even if they are able to delete them? They are still being dishonest, still leaving their customers in an untenable position, and their solution is no solution at all.
  14. You are aware that non law enforcement CCL holders, on average, shoot less innocent bystanders and hit their target more often than law enforcement does with all their "training", right? While more training is always better for everyone and accidents happen, there is no pandemic of untrained CCL holders wildly shooting themselves or others due to lack of training.
  15. Plenty of civilians also live in IL for many months out of the year, or have second homes here, or spend significant time here caring for elderly family, or live in Indiana but work daily in Illinois, but like the military members are not legal residents. It doesn't matter why one is in IL while not a legal resident. A specific group of people living in IL while not legal residents having the right to carry while some other group living in IL while not a legal resident not having the right to carry is the literal definition of a carve out. I don't think the distinction between 12 months a year (military) and 5 months a year or 7am to 6pm 365 days a year(civilian) changes that fact.
×
×
  • Create New...