Month: May 2023

The Banko Brown Walgreens Shooting

I was first made aware of this shooting as a result of this Tweet:

https://twitter.com/DeanPreston/status/1656023543333933057?s=20

 

I have stated, repeatedly, that with the enormous amount of theft and property crime in Progressive cities, so much that it’s causing big retailers to close stores, that it’s time to legalize lethal force in the defense of property.

Undoubtedly, San Francisco would go the other way on this, but I needed to understand why the change now.

This has to do with the shooting of Banko Brown.

Banko Brown was a black, trans man shoplifter who was shot by a security guard while robbing a Walgreens in San Francisco.  One of the last Walgreens in the city, considering that most have already closed due to loss from shoplifting.

For almost two weeks, the assumption was that Brown was shot for being a black trans man and society values property more than the lives of black trans people.

Now the security camera video has been released along with the San Francisco DA’s decision not to charge the security guard.

 

Honestly, I find this shoot to be of dubious quality.

The security guard had already done a successful takedown of Brown and at the time, it looked like Brown was leaving.

Part of me cynically notices that the security guard was black and do is the DA.  Brown was too, but I doubt the San Francisco DA wants to make any black on black shooting high profile.

You absolutely know if the security guard was white, he’d have been charged like Daniel Penny was in NYC.

With the DA not charging the security guard, justifying the shooting with self-defense, that destroys the board’s idea that the guard was not in danger and shot Brown to protect property.

This whole shooting and subsequent administrative rule change is a giant cluster fuck for San Francisco.

The city is clearly I’m collapse and all of it’s law enforcement is entirely based on racial and identity politics.

Less than ideal, but got the job done.

An 8-year-old Michigan girl’s older brother was in the right place at the right time to prevent a kidnapping, according to the Michigan State Police.

On Wednesday, state police responded to a call in Northern Michigan’s Alpena Township, according to WWTV.

The girl was hunting for mushrooms in her backyard when a 17-year-old assailant covered her mouth and tried to drag her into some nearby woods.

Her 13-year-old big brother, who was inside the house, ran out to help, police said.

“He was able to grab his slingshot and was able to slingshot something that hit the suspect right in the head. And that caused him to let go,” Alpena Post Commander Lt. John Grimshaw said.

13-Year-Old Boy Grabs Slingshot and Stops Kidnapping of Little Sister – Visible Wounds on Suspect Hint at His Deadeye Aim (westernjournal.com)

A slingshot was better than just harsh word and wishful thinking. In fact, loaded with the proper projectile, it can inflict serious bodily harm and even death.
Which is why it is a controlled weapon subject to heavy penalties if not properly registered with the appropriate authorities in the Gun Control Heaven that is Venezuela.

Hat tip Paul K.

Quote of the Day

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592, 128 S.Ct. 2783; see also McDonald, supra, at 767-769, 130 S.Ct. 3020. We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 625, 128 S.Ct. 2783. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis deleted).

Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F.3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” 554 U.S., at 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634-635, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F.3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U.S., at 582, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F.3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid. But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U.S., at 592, 627-629, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F.3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers … gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U.S., at 627-629, 128 S.Ct. 2783. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624-625, 128 S.Ct. 2783. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F.3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U.S., at 767-768, 130 S.Ct. 3020; Heller, supra, at 628-629, 128 S.Ct. 2783.

The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F.3d, at 411-412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—”are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection … to a freestanding `interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S.Ct. 2783. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Ill., 136 S. Ct. 447 (Supreme Court 2015)

Thank you Clarance Thomas.

Games People Play -> You Lie Down with Dogs

Background

The Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of an Amendment is locked to the time it was adopted. The People at that moment of time analyzed the end and decided that the means proposed was properly balanced. If The People decide that the original analysis was wrong, they will go through the process of amending the Constitution.

Karen Achoo, the governor of a blue state, requests and gets the Protect Our State (POS) law passed. This declares that dangerous or unusual weapons can be banned, and it is factually obvious that firearms that hold more than two rounds are dangerous and thus are banned.

This bill goes into effect on January 1, 2024. We now game the problem from the view point of the anti-gun side.

Scenario One

The Supreme Court is 6-3 favoring originalism. Judges that will read the law(s) as written and apply the means-end that was done at the time of the adoption of those Amendments.
Read More