Gun Free Zone

B.L.U.F. The Court found that the country has a history and tradition from pre-founding through the modern day of banning dangerous weapons.

The plaintiffs (good guys) have requested a Temporary and Preliminary Injunction to enjoy the state from enforcing the Illinois assault weapon ban as well as the large capacity magazine bans. This is a Second Amendment Challenge

The Court’s statement regarding the factual background

The factual background is whatever the Court decides it is. This is part of the task of a Judge. They decide what the facts of the case are when there is no jury involved. We can learn significant information about the leaning of the Court just from their statement of facts.

Here the Court gives its first glimpse of their bias via the implied facts. “[W]idespread mass shootings nationally” is certainly a loaded phrase. It has the implied fact that there are widespread mass shootings. A fact that is not in evidence.

They move on to give a pretty standard definition of “assault weapon” to include many semi-automatic rifles. It is important to note that this is a ban on possessing an assault weapon as well. The exception being that you have to register the firearm with an “endorsement affidavit”. The same affidavit is required for all LCMs.

The court points out that the new ban is no big deal because the county and city have had bans since 2006 and 2013. No big deal to have the state do it too.

The Question

Is the plaintiff’s right to self-defense threatened by his inability to keep his rifle and pistol and magazines in his home?
Is the “endorsement affidavit” a forced registration, threatening his right to keep and bear arms?

Read More

Missus and I will be taking the weekend off (sort of) but I will be involved in some learning stuff.

I may or may not update from the road. I have the WordPress App in the phone, but I dare not to do much. J.Kb does very good this way good and AWA posts everything via an old Nokia flip phone.

It is all true…. give or take a lie or two.

But retailing over $1K, it shall remain like all other Italian beauties…just a dream.

This has been an interesting week for me. I’m working on a project where I’m being required to do much more frontend work than I normally do. This required me to actually learn Bootstrap’s grid system. It is astonishing how much I learn when I read the code instead of just reading the documentation.

Another part of this was learning about citations and what they mean. This became critical when reading Judge Lindsay Jenkins’ Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the Illinois AWB + LCM ban.

Consider the following: “561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010)”. This is an official reference to McDonald. “561” is volume 561 of U.S. which is “United States Reports”. The same case can be referenced via the “S.Ct.” reporter, which is “Supreme Court Reporter”. And finally, there is “L.Ed.” and “L.Ed.2d) which is the “United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers’ Edition”.

The next number, in our example “742”, is the page number in the printed reference. The “767” after that is the page from which this particular quotation was taken.

Here is the quote of interest to me:

Id. is Latin for “idem” meaning “the same”. In citations, it means the same citation just used. This means I have to find the correct citation. This particular Judge is good with his citations. Whereas most people put the citation immediately after the quotation, this Judge puts them close. He mentions McDonald v. City of Chicago and a line later he gives the citation.

This reference is to pages 899 through 900. Somewhere on those two pages of the printed reporter will be the quote he is citing.

Now I don’t remember anything in Heller, McDonald, or Bruen that said that there was a history or tradition of banning the possession of especially dangerous weapons. The judge quoted them; therefore it must be there. Maybe he pulled it out of context?

The text of the McDonald opinion is available from multiple sources. What isn’t available from most of those sources is a version with the page numbers as used in the cited reporter.

After a bit of looking, I found it at the Library of Congress. I verified it was the correct version because it starts at page 742. Time to find his quote.

Oh shit, there it is:

That is pretty damning language. Why didn’t I know about this?

Oh, here it is, “Stevens, J., dissenting”. Yes, that is Associate Justice Stevens in his dissent to McDonald making this statement. When he quotes back to Heller you have to be cautious because he will often cite back to his own dissent.

In conclusion, this judge decided to justify his acceptance of “historical record” of firearms regulations because the loosing side in McDonald thought, incorrectly, that there were such historical regulations.

On the fun front, a Henry Golden Boy in .22 followed me home. She is very sweet. I need to do a bit more hole punching to get it fully zeroed, that’s just fun.

I hope you all have a great weekend.

Did any of you listen to the Mean Mary music from Tuesday? Should I be looking for different types of music for you’ll?

What does that even mean? that they were created by the or for the Military? Does any body in VPC knows how to use Google? Hiram Maxim came up with the silencer and the car muffler about the same time in 1902. The War Department did not begin to look into silencers till March 1909.

And silencers were pretty much abandoned by the War Department October of the same year.

If your cause is righteous, why lie?

You may have heard of Airman Jack Teixeira who was arrested for allegedly obtaining and releasing super-duper secret military information in some gaming community. Some have raised the question how is it possible that a lowly Airman could have access to such important material, but then I remember it is our new Military which was not very smart to begin with and lately they are more into crossdressing officers and electric tanks so leaving a computer server unsecured with a crapload of sensitive info is not beyond the realm of reality.

Now, the government wants this kid bad, so bad indeed that the prosecutors released pictures of an alleged arsenal belonging to Teixeira and that he researched mass killings plus talked shit in the internet.

Here is a photo of the “arsenal” (Don’t laugh just yet.)

I believe the orange tips gives it away:

You can laugh now.

Kinda explains the lack of ammunition in the photo, right? Plastic BBs do not make for thrilling and convincing cases.

The link above is from USA Today, the same one that seriously brought you the chainsaw attachment for the AR 15. That they missed something as subtle as a federal regulation instituted in 1992 is completely understandable.

“But Miguel, what about the misuse of arsenal?” Well hell, anything beyond 2 firearms and 50 rounds of ammunition is an arsenal for the Press. I won’t even ask how many weapons you have within 3 feet right now or the USA Today editors would be giving birth to rabid kittens in the coffee room.

This is a new bill in Hawaii: HB426

Establishes standards of conduct for firearm industry members. Authorizes any person who has suffered harm because of a firearm industry member’s violation of the standards of conduct to bring a civil action. Authorizes the attorney general or any county attorney or public prosecutor to bring a civil action against a firearm industry member for violation of standards of conduct.

The devil is in the details and the details are how the State of Hawaii defines the standards of conduct.

“Firearm—related product” means a firearm, ammunition, a firearm precursor part, a firearm component, or a firearm 10 accessory that meets any of the following conditions:
(1) The item is sold, made, or distributed in the State;
(2) The item is intended to be sold or distributed in the State; or
(3) The item is or was possessed in the State and it was reasonably foreseeable that the item would be possessed in the State.

“Reasonable controls” means reasonable procedures, acts, or practices that are designed, implemented, and enforced to do the following:
(1) Prevent the sale or distribution of a firearm-related product to a straw purchaser, a firearm trafficker, a person prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law, or a person who the firearm industry member has reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk of using a firearm-related product to harm themselves or another or of possessing or using a firearm—related product unlawfully;
(2) Prevent the loss or theft of a firearm-related product from the firearm industry member; and
(3) Ensure that the firearm industry member complies with all provisions of federal or state law and does not otherwise promote the unlawful manufacture, sale, possession, marketing, or use of a firearm-related product.

§134-B Firearm industry members; standards of conduct.
(a) It shall be a violation of this part for a firearm industry member to fail to comply with any requirement of this part.
(b) A firearm industry member shall:
(1) Establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls;
(2) Take reasonable precautions to ensure that the firearm industry member does not sell, distribute, or provide to a downstream distributor a firearm-related product that is abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety in the State; and
(3) Not engage in any conduct related to the sale or marketing of firearm—related products that is in violation of this chapter.
(c) For the purposes of this part, a firearm—related product shall not be considered abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety based on a firearm’s inherent capacity to cause injury or lethal harm.
(d) There shall be a presumption that a firearm-related product is abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety if any of the following is true:
(1) The firearm—related product’s features render the product most suitable for assaultive purposes instead of lawful self-defense, hunting, or other legitimate sport and recreational activities;
(2) The firearm—related product is designed, sold, or  marketed in a manner that foreseeably promotes the conversion of legal firearm-related products into illegal firearm—related products; or
(3) The firearm—related product is designed, sold, or marketed in a manner that is targeted at minors or other individuals who are legally prohibited from accessing firearms.

Hawaii has effectively codified the Sandy Hook case into law.  If they decide that the way a firearm is marketed is attractive to children or prohibited persons, that is a violation of the law and makes gun companies liable.

They also say that “features render the product most suitable for assaultive purposes,” i.e., what they typically try to ban as assault rifle features, make the firearm abnormally dangerous and therefore make gun companies liable.  It doesn’t matter if these features are standard for a multitude of guns legal in a majority of states, Hawaii considers them abnormally dangerous.

Tie this together with the part of the bill that says “Take reasonable precautions to ensure that the firearm industry member does not sell, distribute, or provide to a downstream distributor a firearm-related product that is abnormally dangerous.”  A gun maker makes parts, those parts go to distributors and retailers.  Somebody buys a pistol grip or a barrel shroud or something else and puts it on their gun in Hawaii.  That, the way I am reading this, makes the gun company liable.  The gun company didn’t take reasonable precautions to stop a part that somehow magically makes the gun more assaultive from getting to a Hawaiian customer, and therefore can be sued.

Here is where this bill really turns to shit:

§134-C Violations; who may sue; relief.
(a) An act or omission by a firearm industry member in violation of this part shall constitute an actionable cause of action.

(b) A person who has suffered harm in the State because of a firearm industry member’s violation of this part may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) In addition to any lawsuit filed against a firearm owner pursuant to section 663-9.5, the attorney general or any county attorney or public prosecutor may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of the people of the State to enforce this part and remedy harm caused by a violation of this part.

(f) If a rebuttable presumption is established pursuant to 21 subsection (e), the firearm industry member shall have the burden of showing through a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm industry member established, implemented, and enforced reasonable controls.

(g) An intervening act by a third party, including but not limited to criminal use of a firearm—related product, shall not preclude a firearm industry member from liability under this part.

The firearms manufacturer is assumed to be guilty and must prove their innocence that they took reasonable precautions.

Even if the gun was used illegally, and possibly obtained illegally, the firearm manufacturer is still liable.

Pretty much this bill exists to make it possible for Hawaii to use the attorney general to engage in state-funded lawfare against the firearms industry with the deck stacked against it.  It is the antithesis of the PLCAA.

This bill will pass, the key will be it getting struck down.

Until then, brace for a flurry of bad faith lawsuits against gun makers.