B.L.U.F. More on District Judge Renee Marie Bumb’s opinion on NJ’s Bruen spasm legislation, Chapter 131. The case is currently being appealed to the Third Circuit court as Ronald Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey, 23-1900, (3rd Cir.)

Her Historical Analysis

The first 50 pages or so of the opinion covered Judge Bumb’s analysis of the text, history and tradition of gun control regulations. When all was said, she found that regulations from as early as the 1328 and as late as the 1890s all support a history and tradition of disarming dangerous people.

She doesn’t cover the Statute of Northampton, from 1328. Different people read it in different ways in regard to how it limits the ownership of arms. She really digs in with regulations dating from 1860.

What most of these regulations have in common is that they set the punishment for the common-law offense” of going armed to terrify the people—KOONS v. PLATKIN, No. 1:22-cv-07464, Doc. 124 (D.N.J.).

Those that were not about going armed to terrify the people were about disarming disfavored groups. Slaves, Negros, Indians, Catholics, and people that were unhappy with the Government or unhappy with the people unhappy with the government were all groups that regulations disarmed.

While Bruen specifically mentions “regulations” in the context of historical analogies, Judge Bumb extends that to include discussions about regulations.

Consider a debate in the legislature regarding the adoption of the new Constitution. It is clear that they want some changes, amendments, to the Constitution. There are three different versions presented:

1. The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed!
2. 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.
3. The right of the people loyal to the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All three of those codify the right to keep and bear arms. The first group pushes hard. They argue that the simple command should be more than enough to protect the right. The second group pushes back. They argue that by explaining the reason why it is so important to protect the right to keep and bear arms, they make the protections stronger.

The third group is concerned about the federal government usurping the citizen militia. They fear that citizens of the state will be tempted by the federal government to take up arms against the states. The wish to have the power to disarm those that are openly agitating against the state government, in favor of the federal government.

After much heated debate, the third version is off the table. The delegates fell that giving the government any say in who keeps and bears arms to be too dangerous. Some more debate and the second version wins.

At this point, we see that The People, via their representatives, have done a means-end or interest balancing tests and determined which version they want.

Judge Bumb feels that the third group’s arguments should be given as much weight in the discussion of the tradition of firearm regulation as the actual regulation adopted. I feel it is the opposite. The fact that they were tested and found wanting means that it was a loosing argument then and is still a loosing argument today.

Her use of surety laws is just as weak.

The Second Amendment only applies to the “Virtuous Citizen”

Read More

Pay attention to this tweet:

“Permanently remove AND dispose.”

But this is the ATF director under oath saying something totally different (2:35)

“Do one of several things: They can either detach the brace from the firearm and keep both and they can attach that brace to another one.”

I am just waiting for another populated building to go up in flames because the ATF needs to show it is a butch agency and the braces will be the excuse to light the fire.

In case you missed the story:

A white nurse who is 6-months pregnant rented an e-bikr from an automated kiosk.  A group of five black men grabbed her and her bike and shoved it back into the kiosk, effectively canceling her rental.  Then they rented that bike and tried to take it out from under her.

She resisted and called for help.  The men rrecorded her calling for help and the video went viral.

The claim is that the pregnant white nurse was trying to steal the bike from the five black men.

Receipts prove her side of the story.

Black activists have claimed that she “weaponized her tears.”  That a white woman calling for help when assaulted by black men is tantamount to attempted murder and is racist.

https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1657918241614774275?s=19

Citibike Karen has deleted all her social media accounts.

Don't hide now, bitch. Be as loud and proud as you were when you weaponized your white lady tears and screamed "help" to try and get those young Black men killed.

— first of all, bitch, … (Yeah Mo!) (@thejournalista) May 15, 2023

The point here cannot be understated.

The goal is to make people understand that when they are attacked by thugs from an oppressed group, they must not resist or call for help.  They must submit and subjugate themselves.  To resist or even call for help makes them more guilty of moral crimes.  The black man may be stealing something, but resisting their stealing is racist.

We’re seeing the sane thing with the Jordan Neely Daniel Penny subway fight.  Defend innocent people from a black man making terrorists threats is racist.

Don’t fight back. Call the police.

Don’t call the police.  Call a social worker.

Don’t call for help at all, just take your lumps.

They want to create a system of racial dhimmitude as social justice.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — One family is leaving Tennessee next month due to the state’s new law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

Kristen Gibbons has four teenage children, all of who identify as queer. Her youngest is transgender and has been receiving puberty blockers from a doctor in Nashville for two years. However, she said despite the law not yet being enacted and pending legal challenges, medical professionals who once provided gender-affirming care will stop doing so in a few weeks.

Mom of trans teen moving out of Tennessee to protect her family (wkrn.com)

A parent living his/her sport’s fantasy through their kids and making their lives miserable is frowned upon by these people. But they have no issue Mengelizing their kids to be in the latest political Left-Wing fashion, even if they transform them permanently into freaks of fake science.

I foresee an increase in parricides in a not-too-distant future. And if I am called as a juror, the real victim will get to go home.

Last week we asked which cases you were interested in next, the winner was Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Brown. Unfortunately, this got put on the back burner when District Judge Bumb issued her opinion regarding New Jersey’s Bruen response bill. Part two of the analysis of her opinion is in progress.

Hagar has a couple of articles in the queue, based on the feedback you provided.

After O.F.F. v. Brown is updated, I’ll be looking at Boland v. Bonta which is the California rooster case.

There are a few more cases in progress.

I’m hoping that Miguel will take a look at some of the bills making their way through Congress. One of my feeds reported a bill that was introduced to restrict firearm purchases for anybody 25 or younger.

Is there anything you’d like us to look into?

Give your feedback down below.

Have a Great Weekend!

Shortly after the Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting, the narrative of Steven Spainhouer was born.

We has supposed to be a good Samaritan whi rushed in to save lives.

The media interviewed him and promoted that.

Spainhower is a former police officer and army officer.

Back the Blue veteran, salt of the earth, wearing a cowboy hat in Texas.

Then he came out for gun control.  The old story of the guy who loved guns until a massacre hit too close to home.

Steven Spainhouer, a former officer in the US army and police, claims to be a "gun lover" and feels at ease around firearms.

Spainhouer, though, is now fiercely advocating for gun control.https://t.co/zGUvXdLfVb

— WION (@WIONews) May 9, 2023

‘Gun-loving’ ex-US army officer calls for gun control after witnessing Texas mall shooting

As an ex-police and US army officer, Steven Spainhouer is comfortable around firearms and goes so far as to describe himself as a “gun lover”.

But Spainhouer is now passionately arguing in favor of meaningful gun control after witnessing a rifle-wielding man murder several people before being shot to death by police outside a suburban Dallas shopping mall Saturday.

“We need some action in our legislatures at the federal and state level for better gun control,” he said in an interview with MSNBC a day after the mass killing outside Premium Outlets in Allen, Texas. “And I’m saying that as someone who loves guns.”

Well, turns out Spainhouer is also a liar.

Bad Samaritan! ‘Hero’ dad who claimed to have rushed to scene of Texas mall massacre where he found girl shot with ‘no face’ is ‘not a credible witness’ and did not administer first aid, cops say

The man who claimed to be a Good Samaritan during the Texas mall massacre has been accused of lying and branded ‘not a credible witness’ by cops.

Allen Police Department said they believe former Army officer Steven Spainhouer has spent the week since the shooting spreading misinformation.

The Allen Police Department has urged media outlets to stop sharing his story over the ‘discrepancies’ in his tale.

‘Inconsistencies between these public accounts and investigative facts led Allen Police Department to conduct a follow-up interview. During this interview, detectives determined that Mr. Spainhouer is not a credible incident witness,’ police said.

Following his interviews, Spainhouer was hailed as a hero for his actions. He later went on to call for gun reform in Texas despite being ‘someone who loves guns.’

In their new statement, police said Spainhouer was at the scene on the day of the mass shooting but that he arrived after an officer had already shot and killed gunman Mauricio Garcia.

Spainhouer ‘did not perform CPR or administer first aid’ and ‘did not move a deceased mother who was covering a live child,’ police said.

Dude is an ex-LEO, one would think he’d know better than to fuck up a criminal investigation with self aggrandizement.

But the ability to get publicly lauded and call for gun control is just too tempting to be bound by little things like the truth.

That’s how David Hogg built his brand.

There is some part of me that believes he’s a glowie plant.  An ex-government Fudd who could call for gun control in front of the camera that close to a disaster is just too convenient.

I’m glad he’s exposed as a liar.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.