My first thought was how many surgeries and doses of botox did she have?

I guess we know where some of the Bloomberg money was spent?

Talk about a shitty return on his investment. If anything, the AR 15 is more popular than ever, Gun Control laws are being challenged and defeated. Guns are being sold in record numbers and new Gun Owners are in the millions.

She tried to be in politics, but was brutally rebuffed by Democrats. Political props don’t get support.

And she is another example of what I said for years: All Gun Control activists come with an expiration date, (even the extremely well-funded ones.)

J.Kb. posted a nice write up today about how the district courts and lower state courts all seem to be following Bruen and handing out win after win. This is great!

I do want to point out a potential issue that we all have to be careful about.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of their Second Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions of Chapter 1`31 Section 7(a), which criminalizes carrying handguns in certain “sensitive places,” subparts 12 (public libraries or museums), 15 (bars, restaurants, and where alcohol is served), 17 (entertainment facilities), and 24 (private property), as well as section 7(b)’s ban on functional firearms in vehicles. The State may regulate conduct squarely protected by the Second Amendment only if supported by a historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants will not be able to demonstrate a history of firearm regulation to support any of the challenged provisions. The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, as holders of valid permits from the State to carry handguns, constitutes irreparable injury, and neither the State nor the public has an interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Accordingly, good cause exists, and the Court will grant the motion for temporary restraints. An accompanying order of today’s date shall issue

In Bruen the Court said that once the Second Amendment is implicated it is then on the government to demonstrate a history and tradition of firearm regulation in support of that infringement.

This is very important as it changes the burden of proof from the plaintiffs (good guys) to the defendants (bad guys). In many of the cases we have covered we’ve seen how the state, over and over again, makes a broad sweeping statement of “it is supported by history and tradition” but then doesn’t bring the proof.

Instead the state argues that it is upto the plaintiffs to prove that there was no such history or tradition. It is impossible to prove a negative. As soon as it becomes the accepted methodology we are going to see a series of cases where the state claims there is a tradition and history and the courts will require the plaintiffs to prove that it isn’t.

At which point the state merely has to show one case that disproves the position. The case will devolve into arguments about if it is an outlier or something else.

For example, Bruen explicitly excludes gun control laws from the frontier west. While there are many signs and lots of history showing that many western towns had the people turn in their guns when they rode into town, the size of the population of the United States in the western states where these laws and regulations existed was less than 1%.

But in an argument before the Ninth Circus court I would not be at all surprised to see this flipping of the burden of proof and then having the state point to these western outliers as enough to show that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving there was no history or tradition. Also not that there is a logic error there.

The state is required to show a law has history AND tradition. The opposite of that is “no history or no tradition” but the state puts it as “no (history or tradition)” which is logically wrong.

All in all this is a great opinion. We want to make sure we watch for those word games that can turn this on its head.

Last month I covered how New Jersey’s governor made is clear that the purpose of the post-Bruen concealed carry law was to effectively make concealed carry impossible in New Jersey by law abiding citizens.

“What kind of state do we want to be? Do we want to be like Mississippi or Alabama, whose firearm death rates are nearly five times ours, or do we want to remain a state where people can actually be and feel safe?” Murphy said at a bill signing event flanked by gun control advocates in red “Moms Demand Action” shirts. “This law ensures that no matter what Washington might throw at us, we will keep doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our citizens.”

A judge recognized the unconstitutionality of the law and upheld a temporary injunction against it.

Some of the excerpts are great.

I highly recommend that you read the whole thing here.

The state of New Jersey was smacked down hard.

I hope this trend continues where these anti-CCW states are forced to comply with Bruen.

The Way of the Househusband.

No politics.

No agenda.

Just funny.

You may need to click to enlarge.

B.L.U.F. When a conflict of understanding the language of a law which is enacted by a regulatory agency (EPA, ATF, and so on) a judge is required to accept the agencies “definitions”. This is why so many government agencies think they can get away with putting out regulations which are not based on law.

In February of 1984 the case was argued before the Supreme Court and in June of 1984 they issued their opinion.

The Clear Air Act Amendments of 1977 Congress required that States that had not achieved the national air quality standards established by the EPA to use a permitting program within the State.

The amended Clean Air Act required a permitting scheme whereby an new or modified major stationary sources of air pollution were required to get a permit. The permit was not to be issued unless several stringent conditions were met.

The EPA created regulations that said all sources within a single plant were to be considered as a whole. Not individually. They did this by defining what “stationary source” meant.

This upset the Natural Resources Defense Council so they filed suit. The case made its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued their opinion saying, in short: The term “stationary source” as provided in the legislation is ambiguous. The subject matter experts in this is the government agency in charge of regulating “stationary sources” of pollution, the EPA.

Since the EPA is that agency, and because they are the subject matter experts, their definition of what “stationary source” means is the correct one. Moving forward, all inferior courts should give deference to the government agency anytime the definitions are not unambiguous.

This has lead to many cases being shot down long before they get anywhere. The EPA says “that’s a wetland”, the land owners say “it’s a f’ing mud puddle”, the courts say “The EPA says it is a wetland, it is a wetland.” The land owner says “But that’s why we are hear in court, there is a conflict as to the meaning of “wetlands” and we want the courts to clarify the meaning, that’s your job.”

On appeal, the circuit courts would say “Chevron says we must defer to the agency in these cases.”

This is what the ATF is depending on in their new rules regarding “frames and receivers”. The ATF is saying that because the term “frame or receiver” is ambiguous they get to set the definition. They are using Chevron as their legal standing to do so.

Unfortunately for them, the term frame or receiver is not ambiguous. We all know what one is. The ATF can issue a determination that a particular chunk-o-metal has reached the stage where it is a frame or receiver. They can’t say “This will become a frame or receiver and thus is a frame or receiver”.

The language precludes them from the definition they want to use. If something is “readily converted into a frame or receiver” it is by definition, NOT a frame or receiver. If it is not a frame or receiver then the ATF doesn’t get to regulate it.

Again, under Chevron the ATF says that a recursive definition, “It is a frame or receiver because it can readily become a frame or receiver” is a real definition. Using that definition, if an 80% lower is a receiver because it can readily become a receiver. Thus a raw forging is a receiver because it can readily become an 80% lower which is actually a receiver. Which of course leads to a chunk of aluminum bar stock is a receiver because it can readily become an 80% lower, which is actually a receiver.

Does this mean that a bunch of aluminum cans, about to be smelted down and reused is now a firearm? Those aluminum cans can readily be converted into bar stock which can readily be converted into an 60% raw billet receiver which can readily be converted into an 80% lower which can readily be converted into an actual receiver which can be turned into a firearm, readily.

This is hilarious!