NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Back in January, a man allegedly used a butter knife to break into a Belmont University dorm, but as it turns out, that wasn’t the first time.

Surveillance footage showed 64-year-old Alexander Baxter entering a secured area of Belmont’s campus using a silver object that appeared to be a butter knife on Jan. 22, an arrest affidavit said.

While arresting Baxter on Feb. 20 for burglary and possession of burglary tools, officials said police discovered a silver butter knife with a bent tip to bypass a locked door, along with a Belmont ID card and the toboggan he was seen wearing on the night of the break-in.

Man facing new charges after butter knife break-in at Belmont University in Nashville, TN (wkrn.com)

I went to Belmont in the 80s when it was still a college and laws had not become stupid. One or my roommates worked security, but all in all the campus was not a dangerous place. Then again, in good probability there might have been a gun or 2 per floor in the dorms, guns in the college-owned outside housing and a bunch of people carried pocket knives everywhere in campus (I plea the 5th).

Were weapons it kosher with the institution? I seem to recall they were not, but since nobody went stupid, nobody cared to enforce the internal regulations, I believe dancing was a bigger fear than guns or knives for the administration.

Did we have incidents? Yes. There were the occasional petty criminal going after valuables inside student cars, but some were not as smart as they thought they were and were caught in the act by “unarmed” campus security. I believe a couple of “intellects” actually broke into a male dorm once and…well…. you can imagine how that went. And by the way, none of the incidents ever made the news because nobody back there was an attention whore.

Since I moved to Tennessee, I have been keeping track of my old neighborhood and sadly found out it is not the quiet place it used to be. At least a couple of homicides and several violent incidents reported and the overall area apparently slowly becoming a fecal opening.

But hey! At least Nashville is run by a member of Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors for Gun Control. That should make everybody feel safe.

Not this pic, but I got to hold this beauty.

In Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh in the Fourth Circuit court oral arguments were held on 2022-12-06. I started listening to the oral arguments back in December but couldn’t make my way through them so was hoping for a transcript.

Today I’ve made my way part of it and got to the point where the state drew blood.

In Heller and Bruen they Supreme court said that firearms can be regulated if they are dangerous and unusual. In Caetano quoting Heller the court says But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 – Supreme Court 2016 P. 1031

The key here is commonly used for lawful purposes. In the arguments throughout all of the cases we are following the state restates this as in common use for self-defense. They then go on to define “for self-defense” to mean documented cases where an “assault weapon” was used and then attempt to narrow that even further to the trigger was pulled.

In the oral arguments the state is very consistent in using the phrase “in common use for self-defense” instead of “in common use for lawful purposes.” When the state starts the court doesn’t fall for it. But the state continues and then suddenly around the 30 minute mark the Court starts using “common use for self-defense” and you can hear it in the state’s voice as they have their “gotcha” moment. That moment when they got the court thinking of redefining “unusual”.

Oral arguments for Dominic Bianchi v. Brian Frosh

I saw this tweet from our “friends” of Everytown for Gun Control:

That leads to an article by the Fascists/Socialists (but I repeat myself) Antifa supporters of the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The spot where Dominic Jerome “D.J.” Broadus II died from four shots fired by his male paramour was about as secluded as could be.

Hidden at the end of a sandy, private road cut through the vast, ancient, scrub pine forest that surrounds Macclenny, Florida, it was the perfect place to do something that you didn’t want anyone else to see.

There, Gardner Kent Fraser, who is white and from a prominent local family, met Broadus, a Black man, and tried to keep their relationship hidden. Their relationship broke many taboos in this conservative town 28 miles west of Jacksonville.

But the 115 phone calls and over 100 text messages that investigators uncovered between the two men – many of them with sexually explicit photos – showed that their eight-month relationship had grown increasingly tense and troubled. Fraser – who also had a girlfriend at the time – feared Broadus would expose their secret, especially after Broadus played a prank in which he threatened just that.

‘Stand Your Ground’ laws reflect legacy of white supremacist vigilantism in Deep South (splcenter.org)

Of course, the results of the investigation paint a different picture:

“We have conducted an extensive investigation into the death of Dominic Broadus, Jr. and declined to bring charges against Gardner Fraser for the shooting of Broadus,” David Chapman, communications director for the State Attorney’s office said in a statement. “This investigation has determined that Broadus showed up to Fraser’s private residence – an isolated property in the middle of a rural area — unannounced and uninvited. Fraser asserted that Broadus attacked him on the doorstep of his home.”

The statement continued, “The investigation has not generated evidence to disprove Fraser’s claim of self-defense. The evidence in this case, Fraser’s unwavering claims of self-defense, and Florida law do not provide support for homicide charges. We are ethically prohibited from instituting criminal charges that we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”

Florida man sentenced after killing Black man who was his alleged lover (yahoo.com)

What a surprise! Once again it was not Stand Your Ground but plain Self-defense and I would even add under the Castle Doctrine principle. But if you look around in other blogs and political sites, you will see a lack of mentioning Mr. Broadus actions in Mr. Fraser’s property.

And, of course, they have to bring back this old tidbit of incomplete information.

While there is no current, granular data to show how many Black men and boys have been killed in Florida by white people who have claimed self-defense, the Tampa Bay Times in 2013 published its analysis of 200 cases. It concluded that the law was not applied equally by race and that when the victim was not white, the killer was more likely to escape punishment. It found that “in nearly a third of the cases … defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim – and still went free,” and “73% of those who killed a Black person faced no penalty compared to 59% of those who killed a white person.”

We covered that same database by the Tampa Bay Times finding out that Blacks were favored over Whites in SYG claims, which might be the reason the paper suddenly dropped any further “research” on the matter and made the raw data hard to find.

And then there is that little constant lie the Stand Your Ground is an Evil Florida-born law when in fact there are at least three SCOTUS decisions upholding Stand Your Ground. 

And one last item: Words have meanings but they love to twist them for their purposes. This was a killing of one man by an individual, yet it is called a lynching because it evokes a guttural reaction. It is the misuse of a tragic memory in the history of this country, applied specially against unarmed blacks, to make sure they remain unarmed and defenseless and hopefully we end up the same.

Bruen has hurt them a lot and the only thing they have now is to rehash old points in order to cloud issues with the public, gambling on their short-term TikTok memory. It is our duty to call them liars and show the evidence that favors the Truth.

GArbage human Congresswoman Rashid Tlaib (D-Hezbolla) put forth a resolution about political violence against women in politics.

This is the text of her support from her website.

Tlaib Leads Re-introduction of Resolution Calling for Government Action to Mitigate Violence Against Women in Politics During Women’s History Month

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), along with Congresswomen Cori Bush (MO-01), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), and Lois Frankel (FL-22), Chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, introduced a House resolution recognizing that violence against women in politics is a global phenomenon and that more research should be conducted to examine its extent and effects in the United States. As we celebrate Women’s History Month, many of the women we are uplifting and honoring have been subjected to threats of violence and intimidation. The resolution calls on the U.S. government to adopt policies that promote women’s political participation and help mitigate violence against women in politics in the United States and abroad.

“I’m proud to join Representative Tlaib in introducing this resolution to acknowledge what so many of us know all too well: violence against women is a systemic problem that also uniquely harms women in politics, especially women of color,” said Congresswoman Cori Bush. “Since coming to Congress, I have received countless death threats, endured endless microaggressions and frequent veiled attacks — even by my own colleagues. All of those have only strengthened my resolve. I am more committed than ever to ensure that women — Black women in particular — are not only empowered to join civic life, but are also protected when they do make the courageous decision to actively participate in political life.”

“Women in politics are all too familiar with the constant barrage of hate and vitriol we receive. And this is an unfortunate truth for women globally, at all levels of government. But even in the face of constant misogyny and racism, we hope to create a more welcoming and safe space for women in politics,” said Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. “I’m proud to join Congresswoman Tlaib in introducing this resolution to protect women in politics and encourage their participation.”

“Women are subject to fear, intimidation, threats and, in some cases, violence, to deter them from participating in politics,” said Congresswoman Omar. “It is true here in the United States and around the world, and this phenomenon is especially acute for women from marginalized communities. The United States should be leading a global effort to increase women’s participation in political life, and hold opponents of women’s political rights accountable. I am proud to join my colleague Rep. Rashida Tlaib in doing just that.”

“As women in politics—and women of color—we are all too familiar with the vitriol and constant threats of violence that come with claiming our rightful place in the world and a seat at the table of our democracy,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “But the relentless and misogynistic attempts to intimidate, debase and silence us because of our gender only strengthen our resolve in pursuit of equality and justice. We must never accept this violence as simply the cost of women’s participation in civic and political life and must continue to raise awareness and root out these sexist attacks wherever they take place. I am proud to join Representative Tlaib in introducing this resolution, which recognizes violence against women in politics as the global crises that it is and affirms the rights of women everywhere to serve our communities in halls of power.”

These are literally the worst people in politics, advocating for the most extreme and racist, quasi-communist policies imaginable.

Of course they are going to catch shit for it.

They speak of black windb mayors.

Look at what Lightfoot did to Chicago, Bass to LA, Jones to St Louis, Janey to Boston.

I’m not saying it’s because they are black woman but because they are ridiculous Woke Leftists and that ridiculous Woke Leftist destroy cities.

But now with this resolution, you can’t call them out because they are black woman and that is violence.

They want to hide behind their skirts while lobbing grenades.

B.L.U.F. The Eleventh Circuit Court covering Florida had a three judge panel decided that 18-20 year olds couldn’t buy firearms. The opinion is a hot take.

Emotional Blackmail Works

The three judge panel’s opinion was written by Circuit Judge Rosenbaum. She starts the opinion with some emotional blackmail, telling us that young adults have been shooting people for a very long time using newspaper reports from the 1870’s. She is using this to get the following statements into the opinion:

Double emphasis added.

In Bruen quoting Heller the Supreme Court established that when talking about the history and tradition of firearm regulation that the date to look at is 1791, the ratification of the Second Amendment. The founding period extends, at the latest, to 1826 when the last of the founding fathers died. Laws from the Reconstruction Era can be used to reinforce those traditions but can not be used if not supported by a tradition dating back to 1791.

Age Bans are Legal If You Use Reconstruction Era Laws

Judge Rosenbaum wants to use Reconstruction Era laws to justify the current law.
Read More

There was a small snow storm up here this week. Everything is back to normal.

Later today there is going to be oral arguments in Koons v. Reynolds. Finding the transcripts has proven difficult and listening to oral arguments drives me bonkers.

We are waiting on a number of cases as well. There is the case down in the Eleventh Circuit Court where the three judge panel decided that Bruen be damned, they were going to find laws justifying today’s infringements. There are the CCIA cases in New York that will be heard by the Second Circuit court soon.

All in all there are a lot of moving parts.

One of our readers asked “Why do you spend all this time on legal cases?” to paraphrase. I had to think on that a bit.

Just before I headed off to University I was thinking about buying a gun. I didn’t really have the money but I was thinking about it. I really wanted to buy an M-16. They weren’t that expensive and they were cool.

At University I spent my money on music (CD Collection) and stereo equipment, books and education. I collected knives but couldn’t justify buying a gun because I couldn’t carry it. Heck, most of the knives I carried on campus were illegal but…

I graduated, had a kid, thought about that M-16 and suddenly that was gone. In the blink of an eye the cost of an M-16 went through the window with the Hughes Amendment. For those that don’t know, the Hughes Amendment was a poison pill added to the Firearm Owners Protection Act. The FOPA was designed to reign in the ATF and to allow citizens to transport weapons through gun unfriendly states without being harassed or charged.

The Hughes Amendment closed the NFA list to new machine guns.

In that blink of an eye my options changed. I slowly started to see and understand how stupid gun control laws were. When my mentor died his father took ownership of his AR-15. I had to explain to him that he had to unload all the magazines to meet Maryland law regarding “unloaded firearms”

Before my mentor died we had testified in the state legislature against gun infringements. We found that our rights were being eroded.

When I started writing for GFZ I was finding articles and writing opinion pieces based on what those articles said. I tried to find primary sources but most of the time they were missing. As I wrote more I got better at finding the references and reading the references.

At this point I have an acceptable grasp of how to get case documents, not always, but most of the time.

My goal when I write about these cases is for you to see how the fight is fought in court. How the state twists things to get the infringements they want. I also want you to be able to get to the primary sources quickly and easily. That’s why I attempt to cite everything I quote.

I hope my efforts are successful.

One of my biggest thrills on the blog to date was when some lawyer group liked one of my legal analysis articles. I wish that they would fire off an email or start commenting in general. I’d love to have actual lawyer feedback on some of the things I’ve written, I have no real feedback if I’m getting this stuff “right”.

Question of the week, if you are interested in gun rights, how did you get there?