This has been the law of the land since 1791. It was still the law but not formally acknowledged prior to then.

The language is very clear to anybody that is educated in English. Chances are that Miguel, who is not a native speaker of English can parse the 2nd amendment and understand exactly what it means per the rules of English.

So how did we end up in a place where there exists so many infringements? There is no other right in the Constitution that requires government permission to exercise it. You don’t need the government’s permission to post online. You don’t need the governments permission to move from state to state. You don’t need the governments permission to be secure in your papers and person.

These rights exist. The government needs permission in order to infringe on our rights. Where did they get it?

In the early history of the country we had small, individual locations pass infringements. These were allowed to stand because the people either did not care or their complaints were not heard by the courts or the government. There were so few of these laws that the Supreme court opinion in Bruen said that they were outliers and should be ignored.

In 1911 the most famous gun control act was passed. The one that lead to all the others. The Sullivan Act. This law required government permission to possess firearms.

The act was passed based on the idea of stopping people from having guns in violent areas. The reality was that it allowed for the Tammany Hall democrats to disarm all that opposed them while still putting muscle on the street as they wished. The law was always unfairly applied.

Prior to 1911, almost all gun control was based on disarming blacks. They were passed as “safety measures” and they did provide safety, for those attacking newly freed slaves. It wasn’t uncommon for the sheriff to show up and search a black home for “illegal guns”, confiscate the guns they found and for the Klan to arrive that evening to do violence to that household.

The level of corruption in gun control laws never goes away.

The first federal gun control law was the NFA in 1934. This was passed as a “safety measure”. The original goal was to ban all the things that “The Mob” were using. This was machine guns, pistols, sawed off shotguns, and silencers. But congress knew that this was unconstitutional.

Much as Obama Care was unconstitutional when it was a penalty for not having health insurance but it was constitutional when it was a tax, banning guns was known to be unconstitutional, but charging a tax to transfer or register one was constitutional. They took pistols out of the NFA but created a new class of firearm, short barrelled rifle, to keep people from calling a pistol a rifle to avoid the tax.

Because it was “just a tax” in the beginning, being caught with an unregistered NFA item merely required you register and pay your tax. It was only much later that having an NFA item without the tax stamp became an actual crime that you were prosecuted for.

This was challenged in 1936 when the supreme court issued its Miller opinion. The opinion was issued without anybody there to represent Miller. The question before the court was whether the NFA was “an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States” and whether the NFA’s requirements to register and have taxed short barrelled shotguns was counter to the second amendment.

The court did not look at anything else.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

With these words, the supreme court gutted the second amendment for the next 90 years.

The court focused on the right to bear arms meaning that the militia, all the people, needed to be able to have military arms. Since nobody told the court that shotguns were used in a military setting (“In the absence of any evidence…”) they found that short barrelled shotguns were not protected under the second amendment.

Implicit in their decision was the implication that if Miller had been caught with a Tommy Gun and that was what had been brought to the courts attention, then the NFA would have been found unconstitutional. It is unknown if the court would have struck down all of the NFA or only that part that was in question.

This opinion lad to the passage of many more gun control laws. The first challenges failed. In general these laws were passed where the government felt like they were “a good idea”. The district courts were often leaned the same way, and it wasn’t uncommon for the circuit court to also lean in the same directions.

This lead to many cases being dismissed for lack of standing. The lower courts ruled that because the second amendment referred to militia and since the person in question was not a member of the militia, then the 2nd amendment did not apply to the challenger. It went so far as to some states passing anti-militia laws.

The second method used was “level of scrutiny”. The gist is that yes, the law infringes on the second amendment but it is balanced by the needs of the government. In the eyes of the lower courts, an infringement was constitutional if the government said that it was needed for a good cause.

This lead to “you don’t need an AR-15 so it is constitutional to ban them.” and “You need to show good cause before you can have permission to have a gun at your premise” and “As long as we let you buy SOME guns it is ok to ban the rest of them.”

During this time, the different states worked hard to keep those few cases that did have standing in the courts eyes from making it to the Supreme Court. The state might fight tooth and nail through the appeals process claiming that people would die and the streets would run red with blood if their infringement wasn’t allowed to stand. And if they lost at the circuit court level they would look at what might happen if the case was heard by the Supreme Court and go, “you know what, good fight, you won.”

This lead to the interesting situation where it was sometimes better for the state to lose at the circuit court level because that gave them control of the appeal.

This started to change with Heller. In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment was an individual right, not a right reserved for the militia which was now the national guard which was now the states police powers.

Heller was challenging D.C.’s law that banned the carrying of an unregistered firearm, even within the home. And that any resident of D.C. that did lawfully own a firearm had to keep it unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Because D.C. would not allow him to register a firearm Heller could not legally carry it, even in his own home.

The district court dismissed the case. It was appealed and the Second Circuit court ruled that the DC ban was, indeed, unconstitutional. Amazingly DC appealed to the Supreme court which heard the case and ruled in favor of Heller.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

This was the end of courts dismissing 2A cases for lack of standing.

Shortly thereafter the Court heard McDonald. This case stopped “no issue”.

Still the courts continued to use means-end balancing which allowed anti-gun states to pass infringements and then justify those infringements because government knows best how to keep you safe. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Bruen was the end of the two stage analysis.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15

The states and the courts as well as many gun rights organizations have responded to this major change in precedent. GOA, FPC and other organizations have filed suits to overturn long standing laws. In some cases governmental entities have stepped up and made changes to laws, regulations and procedures to bring them in line with the Bruen decision.

The response from the infringers has been interesting, to say the least.

The responses fall into a number of categories:

• Opps, so sorry, we’ve fixed it.
• We are working to correct it, give us time
• We think there is room within the opinion for us to keep our infringements.
• FU SCOTUS, we’re going to infringe still harder!

Along with the states going in this direction, there have been a few court cases that have not gone as expected and these are things to keep an eye on.

In the Central District of California Judge George H Wu states that the plain text of the second amendment “plainly does not” cover the “self-manufacture of firearms”.

The goal here is to create a carve out from the second amendment. To do as much as possible to limit what is covered by the 2nd.

In addition the state of Maryland is arguing that there were historic bans on particularly dangerous weapons.

Others are arguing that the date to consider for “tradition” of firearm restrictions should be the late 1800’s with the passage of the 14th amendment rather than 1791 when the second amendment was ratified.

We need to stay vigilant to how the infringers are going to manipulate language and meaning to continue to infringe.

And we can expect the anti-gun courts to slow walk any decisions that are made.

Contributor : Do It Yourself Emergency Care

Bad Dancer says:

October 21, 2022 at 9:50 am

Thank you for the article and links Reltney McFee I’ve read it several times and will go through it again to make notes soon. I appreciate you sharing your experience and advice.

I’m building a few kits as Christmas presents this year. Are there any supplies you recommend added for a family that has a 1-2 year old?

Thank you for reading.  Outstanding question! With regard to families that have toddlers (or infants), my first pass suggestions would sound very much like, “What did you want on your last camping trip, that you did not have?” along with, “what sort of comfort item does your child love?”

If I were to add to that, I would look to my own “Grand Kids Are Here:  What Might I Need RFN?” (GKAHWMINRFN) supplies. Now, remember, I’ve been a paramedic, paramedic instructor, ED Registered Nurse, and mid level provider since Jimmeh Cahteh was the HMFIC (OK:  President).

On the top of my “GKAHWMINRFN” bag is a pediatric BVM (Bag-Valve-Mask:  commonly referred to as if they were all branded as Ambu Bags).  You might be happy with a pediatric sized rescue breathing mask of some sort, or, easier to pack, mastery of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

Near the top would be comfort items, so as to both distract the child, as well as help the child “buy in” to the procedures to be performed. Blankets, pacifiers, stuffed animals: whatever floats the child’s boat.

Remember that children, particularly infants and toddlers, are NOT simply pint sized adults.  Due to differences in body surface area, kidney function, maturity of their livers and other factors, they may metabolize medications quite differently from adults. So, just slapping some QuikClot on Little Johnnie’s wound may be a problem.  OTOH, here is what I did find in a reference that I use, myself, clinically every day:

“Compared with standard sponges, the use of the kaolin-impregnated sponges in 31 infants undergoing the Norwood procedure had a significantly lower intraoperative use of blood products and lower incidence of perioperative bleeding requiring return to operating room for hemostasis (0 versus 41 percent) [44].” (source: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-topical-hemostatic-agents-and-tissue-adhesives?search=quick%20clot&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1#H2249912903

That means, better bleeding control. THAT suggests that a kaolin-impregnated sponge (QuikClot), at least, is not inappropriate for use on bleeding in children that is not otherwise controllable by dressing, direct pressure, and (in extremis) tourniquet-ting. So, small (2×2, 3×3) dressings impregnated with QuikClot appear to be reasonable.

Splinting materials for fingers, limbs, or whatever, are going to be a challenge, both because children do not, as a rule, comprehend the entire “lay still while I splint you” thing, nor the bit about “do not wiggle about, you will work you way out of this splint, and your injured (whatever) will hurt, and be injured further.”  So, however much tape or gauze you THINK that you will need, you are wrong, and will require considerably more than you guessed. Unless, of course, you have made it a habit to secure IV armboards to infants and toddlers, several times a day, for the past several years.  If you have done so, and done so successfully, please tell me when/where your classes will be, and save me a seat.

Another tangent from adult IFAK/Jump Bag/Holy Fertilizer kits, and child directed emergency care, is that children will both dehydrate, as well as become hypothermic way, way more rapidly than adults, and, once they have burned through their reserves, will crash and burn, often irretrievably. The axiom is that children generally do OK with their injuries, until they don’t.  And, when they don’t, they crash biggly. Adults generally slowly decline, until they die. Therefore, measures to protect a child from heat loss are important.  That means blankets and knit caps in appropriate sizes.  The foil “emergency blankets” are a mixed bag:  they are not going to get saturated in whatever bodily fluid is present (good thing), but they are not going to trap heat in a maze of air pockets formed by a Mark 1, Mod Ø fuzzy/fleece/wool blanket. (and you will notice the difference). Select thoughtfully.

Another feature of kid injuries, particularly infants and toddlers, is that they are top heavy.  Their heads are a greater proportion of their body weight than adults, and that means that their initial point of impact may be more likely to be their heads, than their hands/wrists/forearms. Therefore, when you are in the hot seat, you need to be suspicious of the possibility of a head injury, when children fall. You have learned to spine board/cervical collar/secure for transport, head (and that is often spelled N-E-C-K) injured patients, right?

Right?

Another needful skill, that you pray is never needed.

That is it for my off the cuff, just got home from work and warmed up my laptop, answer to your question.

Thank you for the stimulating inquiry.  Gonna be food for more rumination!

Spokesperson Drew Hammill said the assailant is in custody and the motivation for the attack is under investigation.

Nancy Pelosi was not in the residence at the time. pic.twitter.com/TltjUJfhyO

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 28, 2022

I guarantee you that the assailants are either Black or illegal immigrants and neither had any idea who Paul or Nancy Pelosi are.

If they were white men, especially if they had the faintest association with the Right the media would be exploding with how this was Right Wing extremist political violence.

That the media is not doing this speaks volumes about the assailants even though the police haven’t said anything.

Jim drove his cart over to Bill’s farm. He had a hundred bails of hay stacked in the back. When he got to Bill’s farm Bill’s son unloaded the hay and Bill gave Jim an IOU for 200 pounds of wheat.

Jim thanked Bill and headed off to town. When he got to town he went to the blacksmith to have his mare’s shoes replaced. He gave the IOU from Bill for 200 pounds of wheat to the blacksmith. The blacksmith handed him 3 IOU’s from Bill for 50 pounds each of wheat.

Jim thanked the blacksmith and headed over to the general store. There he picked up a bolt of cloth for his wife a box of 50 rounds of .45 Colt, and 50 pounds of flour. He handed the store clerk to of Bill’s 50 pound IOU’s. The clerk gave him back a 20 pound IOU and a 5 pound IOU.

Jim headed back home.

He had just traded 5000 pounds of hay for new shoes for his mare, cloth for his wife, cartridges for his pistol, flour for his food and he still had 1875 pounds of hay in his pocket.

Money is just a token used to indicate a certain amount of value. The value of that token is set by the trust of the people using that token.

In our example, Bill has promised that he will exchange any of his IOUs for the face value in wheat grain. In this he has set the value.

The blacksmith didn’t need or want hay or grain. He wants a pig to turn into food. He can trade the IOUs he got from Jim to some pig farmer in exchange for a pig. At no time did he have to transfer large bulky goods.

The blacksmith is mostly trading his time for the IOUs. He is selling his labor. The general store is selling convenience and storage in exchange for IOUs

The general store uses some form of barter or trade, including Bill’s IOUs, to purchase things that he doesn’t need in order to store them in his store. Since he has limited shelf space he can’t have everything. He is investing his wealth into his stock. While that stock is sitting on the shelves or warehouse he can’t use it for anything else.

The general store is also trading wealth for transportation. They are paying to have goods transported from where they are available to the store for resale.

If you have ever gone into a hardware store to purchase just a couple of bolts, screws or nuts, you are paying for that storage. The store has thousands of dollars invested in that stock of every type of nut, bolt, washer, and screw that normal people could want.

But what happens if Bill dies and his wife and children just up and go. Are Bill’s IOUs worth anything at that point?

Yes. They are worth exactly what people believe they are worth. If anybody else wants to match the face value in pounds of wheat then those IOUs are stable in value.

Even if nobody is willing to trade a 20# IOU for 20# of wheat, those IOUs still have value. It might be the case that instead of getting 20# of wheat for a 20# IOU you can only get 10# of wheat. Is the IOU worth less?

Maybe not. If you can still get your horse shoed for a 50# IOU and you can still get cartridges, cloth and flour from the general store with Bill’s IOUs, then they still have value.

The difference is that the value of Bill’s IOUs are no longer backed with physical wheat. It is backed by the concept of value assigned by each person that uses those IOUs to exchange wealth.

Here are some of the problems though, if Bill’s IOUs can be faked, counterfeited, then there is the possibility for bad actors to create IOUs without adding value to the system. To many counterfeit IOUs and the value of the IOUs will drop, as will the trust in those IOUs.

It is also possible for Bill to create more IOUs than he has grain to back. As long as everybody believes that the IOUs are backed by actual wheat, this doesn’t matter. As soon as people understand that Bill just creates more IOUs when he wants to buy something they will start to distrust his IOUs. This is inflation.

All money is, is a token to indicate value. That token holds that value as long as people believe in the token and as long as IOUs are not being injected into the economy with no added value. I.e. counterfeiting and printing them.

Kinda, sort of like this:

But as you can imagine if you saw the film, not quite as good-natured.

OK, he does not look like that, but that is the pic I have on my phone with his number.

I stepped outside a couple of minutes ago and was regaled with this view.

And my brain automatically found the proper soundtrack.  I believe I had not heard this song in 20 years or so.

Let’s begin.

With the elections coming in a couple of weeks and by the crap I have read in Social Media, if you don’t vote Democrat, I am supposed to take over my zip code and start scalping transgender babies or some shit like that.
Who knew?

Apropos of nothing.

.

That moment when you see the new hire and you know the last job was with a crew wearing a yellow vest picking garbage from the side of the road being followed by a sheriff’s car.

It never ceases to amaze me how people resent you do a good job. I believe that being mediocre takes more effort than doing things the right way the first time around.

I may be crazy for thinking this way, I guess.

No. Just because you are in Nashville and have an instrument, you are not necessarily a good player who should have a recording contract. In fact, you could scare rats and other vermin the way you play that thing.

Truly Nolan is hiring.

And the last one for today: Life imitates memes.