Measure 114 Small Update
B.L.U.F. Measure 114 is on hold for the time being as the Oregon Supreme Court rules to not let the state proceed with the law.
Measure 114 is the gun grabbers dream bill out in Oregon. The gun grabbers were not able to get the legislature to pass it so instead they took it to a popular vote. Mob rule in other words.
There was some upset about how it got onto the ballot but it did. It passed, barely.
So now it is “voter approved” and the media constantly points that out as they discuss the multiple lawsuits that have been filed.
As we’ve discussed in the pass, there are two primary paths through the courts. At the state level there is the lower court, there might be an appeals court, then there is the state supreme court and then over that is the US Supreme Court. At the federal level there are the district courts, over them are the circuit courts of appeal, and above them is the US Supreme Court.
At every level there are three responses the court can give.
- Dismissed
- Win
- Lose
If your case is dismissed or you loose your case you can appeal. The higher court can the grant the appeal or deny it. If that higher court is an intermediate court, you can appeal to the next higher court.
You can appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court. If SCOTUS decides not to hear your case, then your case is over. You can reapply with changes but the Justices have been known to say “if this yoyo applies again, charge them.”
In general, when a court decides they will not hear a case, they just say that. Nothing more. It is unusual when they actually issue an opinion to go along with that decision. This is why the Antonyuk III denial at SCOTUS was so powerful. Alito, with Thomas concurring, told the plaintiffs that their case was not heard for procedural reasons and that if the Second Circuit Court didn’t respond in a timely fashion the plaintiffs should bring the issue back to SCOTUS.
In general, if your case involves the US constitution, you bring your case up through the federal court system. This is what they did in Oregon. The district court did not grant temporary injunctions nor did they grant any injunctions and the cases are moving slowly. The Ninth Circus Court is highly unlikely to hear an appeal and even if they do, they will delay and then rule that the case has to move forward at a pace that makes glaciers moving look like NASCAR racing.
The lawyers dealing with Measure 114 out in Oregon took a second track as well. They brought the case before a county judge. This is the state level equivalent of a district court at the federal level. Lowest tier.
The judge looked it over and using the Oregon constitution ruled that in his opinion, the plaintiffs (good guys) would prevail at trial and granted an injunction blocking Measure 114 from going in to effect.
The state then appealed to the Oregon Supreme court. The Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. This let the temporary and later preliminary injunctions stay in place.
This week the Oregon Supreme Court issued another ruling/opinion. The state had requested an emergency request to allow them to let the law go into effect.
The Oregon Supreme Court denied the appeal. Measure 114 is enjoined for the time being. Another win.
L.A. Confidential: The Night Owl Massacre.
I do crap on Hollywood plenty, but sometimes movies do have teachable moments:
If you are in a crowded locale which is suddenly invaded by thugs and demand people go to the back room/bathroom/cooler and stay there till they are done, you best start shooting as it is the equivalent of being invited by the SS to take a communal shower. They are rare cases, but invariably end with a stack of bodies to be found later by the authorities.
The gunmen herded four restaurant employees into a walk-in freezer, then rifled the restaurant safe after shooting its lock to open it, police said.
They then returned to the freezer and opened fire, killing Mrs. Figueroa and Eugene Jefferson, 35, a dishwasher at the restaurant, police said. The two other employees were not injured.
The third victim, postal worker Peter Santangelo, 23, apparantly walked into the restaurant to deliver mail during the robbery and was gunned down as he tried to flee, police said.
A former employee of Smokin' Joe's Corner was held… – UPI Archives
Trivia point: The owner of the restaurant was Heavyweight champion Joe Frazier.
I’ve fallen victim to this
Hey contractors and handymen, watch out. pic.twitter.com/rfqqrl4t3L
— Mens_Corner__ (@Mens_Corner__) February 9, 2023
This is why concealed carry is important
https://twitter.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1623779595534098433?s=19
A woman has no chance to stand up against four men in a hand to hand fight.
A woman with a 9mm full of JHP does.
A gun is the great equalizer.
The cowboys knew this. God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal.
This is why Bruen was such an important victory for everyone.
The Woke Left has let the criminal element of society run amok.
Law abiding citizens need effective tools of self defense to protect themselves.
Who Should Be Prohibited?
B.L.U.F. 18 USC §922, the GCA is likely Unconstitutional, and §922(g) which lists prohibited persons should go away and be replaced with something else
In 1963 A. Hidell mail ordered a rifle and a .38 Smith & Wesson Model 10. This man then used the rifle to fire a shot at US Major General Edwin Walker from less than 100ft away.
He missed.
Later that year A. Hidell went to the upper stories of a building in the city and set up a snipers nest. Even though he had once qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines, he had not kept that qualification. When he was honorably discharged from the Marines he was only a “marksman”. His MOS was Aviation Electronics Operator. He was never a “sniper” was never very good with a rifle.
Look at missing his target from less than 100 ft.
On November 22, 1963 A. Hidell was in his snipers nest waiting for his target. A slow moving vehicle. From the sixth floor he took his shots.
One of them hit his target, President John F. Kennedy. His real name was Lee Harvey Oswald. A. Hidell was the name he gave when he purchased his rifle and pistol.
In shock over the assassination of Kennedy which was followed by still more assassinations, the public was horrified to learn that it was “easy to buy a gun”.
“If the gun Oswald would have attempted to purchase those firearms in person, nobody would have sold to him because he gave a false name.”
The push started to eliminate mail order firearms in order to save people and to make society safer.
Oswald was known to law enforcement, had been court martialed, twice, had been in juvenile detention at 12 because he was emotionally disturbed. He was a defector that had come back to the US from Soviet Russia. And he was a communist.
Regardless, the people knew that the real reason that Oswald was able to kill the President of the United States was because of easy mail order access to firearms.
This lead to a push for the first federal gun control since the National Firearms Act of 1934, a tax bill.
Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the US Constitution says:
The Congress shall have power..
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
From this, congress decided to regulate commerce in firearms with the Gun Control Act of 1968
- It shall be unlawful for any person—
- who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
- who is a fugitive from justice;
- who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or
- who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce.
This is the law as it was passed in 1968. What was forbidden of a prohibited person was shipping or transporting firearms or ammunition across state lines.
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
This is what is prohibited today. It is now unlawful to transport, possess, or receive any firearm or ammunition which might affect commerce or be involved with interstate or foreign commerce.
With the clause of “affecting commerce” the law becomes much broader. If you are making firearms for use only in your state you are not covered by interstate commerce. The catch is that if you are selling within your state and somebody buys your firearm instead of one that is covered by interstate commerce, you have affected commerce.
If you are competing with commerce that is federally regulated then you are affecting that commerce and congress thinks that gives them the power to regulate you as well.
The amended GCA adds four more classes of prohibited person.
When we look at the list of prohibited person, the only one that might have constitutional support is “who, being an alien… is illegally or unlawfully in the United States…” (exceptions omitted).
The class of people that belong to “The People” are all legal residents of the US and any US Citizens. Everything else is an attempt at removing a class of persons from “The People”.
Everything in §922(g) is about determining who is and is not virtuous. This is where we have issues.
As a member of society, I would prefer that the bad people be disarmed. There are some strong indicators of who a bad person is. A person that has been convicted of a serious crime involving the use of weapons or other physical threat and those that are mentally unstable are the two groups that I feel should be prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.
That is NOT what the Constitution says. The Second Amendment says “the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not give any set of persons that is excluded from “The People”. In other places in the Constitution “The People” might be better translated as “Citizens”.
It is clear that the second amendment covered more than just citizens. There are just too many historical examples of people being residents of the United States but having the right to keep and bear arms.
Having stated who I feel should not have firearms, I stand up and say that what I want is not constitutional and as such should not be done.
When a person is convicted of a crime or committed for a mental issue they will either be incarcerated or they will be released on probation.
If a person is incarcerated they have lost many of their freedoms. That includes the right to keep and bear arms. They have lost that right for as long as they are incarcerated.
My humble suggestion is that when a person is released from incarceration that they should be put on probation. The period of probation to be fixed based on the conviction and to include all time remaining on their sentence if they are paroled.
As an example consider a person convicted of rape, kidnapping and robbery and sentenced to 30 years for each count to run concurrently. The probation period for the violent crimes of rape and kidnapping have a 7 years probation and robbery with out a weapon has a 5 year probation period.
If our felon was paroled after 23 years in prison he would be on probation for 7 years till his original release date. Since the three convictions run concurrently there is another 7 years of probation for a total of 14 years that the felon would be on probation.
During this time if the felon is caught with a firearm it will be construed as a violation of their probation. The assumption is that they intended to do harm with that firearm.
At the end of their probation period they are allowed to keep and bear arms once again.
This covers all of the issues, in my opinion. Bad people are prohibited till they prove they are no longer doing bad things. People that aren’t doing bad things aren’t prohibited. It all balances.
Regardless, the GCA is taking hit after hit and is likely to fall soon. There is just to much over reach in §922 that are unlikely to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.