This Bike graveyard in China is insane! ?? pic.twitter.com/POMt3lRJsV

— H0W_THlNGS_W0RK (@HowThingsWork_) November 21, 2023

Or the local meth house yard here in the US.

Stolen from The Feral Irishman.

After Heller, the law of the land was that if the proposed conduct implicated the plain text of the Second Amendment, then the history and tradition of arms regulation was examined. If there was an analogous regulation from the ratification of the Second Amendment, then the modern-day regulation was constitutional.

The rogue, inferior Article III courts then proceeded to take unimportant parts of dicta, focused on those crumbs with laser like intensity to discover that the state could still infringe.

Because the Supreme Court, in Heller was only deciding on a single question, there were laws that were not directly struck down. To put this in perspective, when Bruen was decided, there was only one law struck down, that being the good cause part of the NYC permitting requirement.

Every other law in the land still stood, exactly as it had been written.

When the Supreme Court GVRed several cases, no laws were vacated. Instead, the inferior courts were told “Do it over. Do it right.”

In Heller, the Supreme court told the inferior courts how to analyze Second Amendment challenges. Those rogue courts looked at the dicta, the crumbs, and decided to use an interest balancing test instead. They claimed that since the state was allowed to interest balance free speech, and because no right was absolute, that they should engage in interest balancing in Second Amendment cases.

This allowed the inferior, rogue courts, to decide just how badly a regulation was raping you, and then allow the state to argue it was in the best interest of the rest of the state’s subjects to allow you to be raped just that little bit.

Bruen was a slap in the face to those rogue, inferior courts. The major point of Bruen was to say, “We told you how to do it in Heller. You refused. So now we are going to explain it to you, in simple words, that even a lawyer can understand.”

If the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated, the burden shifts to the state to show a history and tradition of analogous laws from the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

If it is an arm or if it is ancillary to the right to keep and bear arms, then we look to see if there is an infringement.

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, published in the 175 and 1773 defined “infringe” as:

1. To violate; to break laws or contracts
2. To destroy; to hinder.

If a regulation hinders your ability to keep or bear arms, then the Second Amendment is implicated.

This puts the burden on the state to find laws that match the modern-day law.

There were not any in the 1791. Thinking about it, The People have just done an interest balancing test of the right to keep and bear arms. The People have decided that this is one of the most important unalienable rights that must be protected from government overreach.

Because The People believe it to be a core, unalienable, right, they have enshrined protection of the right to keep and bear arms in their newly created Bill of Rights.

If the right to keep and bear arms is so essential to The People, is there any reason to expect them to be creating laws that destroy or hinder that right? No. There is no reason.

This means that the modern state has not been able to find analogous laws. They just don’t exist. They have to reach in to the 1600s or the late 1800s before they can find analogous laws. Even those laws are questionable.

What they did find were regulations that removed arms from people who were individually dangerous. Many of those regulations allowed for disarming a person for only the duration of the danger. A drunk person could be disarmed while drunk. When they were sober, their arms were returned.

If a person was dangerous, they could be incarcerated. While incarcerated, they would be disarmed.

If a person was too dangerous to possess arms, the state could make a finding of dangerousness, and disarm a person.

These infringements on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms are what the state is using to disarm us today.

Their stated reasoning is that since the state has the authority to disarm a dangerous person, the state also has the authority to determine if you are dangerous before allowing you to possess a firearm.

We argue that this is backwards. By default, we have the right to keep and bear arms. The state’s argument is that they have to be given a chance to prove you are dangerous before you can possess a firearm.

In Rahimi the Supreme Court pushed the state to articulate what criteria they were using to disarm Mr. Rahimi. The state dithered between “responsible” and “dangerous”. They want the criteria to be “responsible” because that is an easier objective standard to reach than “dangerous”.

It is fairly clear that Mr. Rahimi was not a responsible person. He had not been proven, in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, beyond all reasonable doubt, with a strenuous defense, that he was dangerous.

Translation: He has to have access to a lawyer and have his day in court.

When the state was backed into a corner by the Justices, they relented and stated that it was only the “dangerous” criteria that they actually could justify.

Conclusion

The state threw a bunch of stuff against the wall. Courts, such as Judge Benitez’s, and others have knocked most of the historical regulations out as not applying. The state is left with one potentially winning argument, disarming dangerous people.

Because that was determined to happen on an individual basis, the state is going to do their best to flip the argument from the state proving you are dangerous to you proving that you are not. If they can’t do that, they will push to have time to “verify” that you are not dangerous.

From this, I foresee a spat of regulations coming out of the infringing states regarding permits to purchase and other such infringements.

Maryland’s handgun licensing law has been struck down by a federal appeals court

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Maryland’s handgun licensing law, finding that its requirements, which include submitting fingerprints for a background check and taking a four-hour firearms safety course, are unconstitutionally restrictive.

In a 2-1 ruling, judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond said they considered the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.”

The 4th Circuit opinion by Judge Julius Richardson directly references the Supreme Court decision last year that found Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. That ruling, which also came after a series of mass shootings, ushered in a major expansion of gun rights.

It also required gun laws to fall in line with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In this case, Richardson and Judge G. Steven Agee found no evidence of such alignment.

Even though Maryland’s law doesn’t prohibit people from “owning handguns at some time in the future, it still prohibits them from owning handguns now,” Richardson wrote. “And the law’s waiting period could well be the critical time in which the applicant expects to face danger.”

I started reading the opinion, and I’m going to do a deeper dive into this when I have more time over the holiday weekend.

At first glance, the decision relied on Bruen, arguing that burdensome restrictions on concealed-carry are a Constitutional violation.

The beauty of such a decision is that it give ammunition to kill the concealed-carry laws passed after Bruen in New York, New Jersey, ND elsewhere.

If a state law is shall issue but overly onerous, it’s still in violation of Bruen.

I hope that following this decision, lawsuits are brought against other states, and ultimately, if I’m allowed to fantasize, SCOTUS establishes something very close to national constitutional carry.

A man can dream.

My worry is that if that they will forget what drove them to take their safety seriously when this particular cycler dies down (if it does) stop training and put the guns away or sell them.

Safety is an active state of mind and continuous work, not a “feeling” of wellness and respite.

Hat tip Royko

There’s so much going on with kids right now. I’ve had numerous conversations at the dinner and breakfast table, with friends, when out and about, about the state of children, and what’s going on in schools.

Kids are being insane at schools. There are children who are so badly behaved that they are holding entire schools hostage because of that behavior. Be it throwing rocks at cars and breaking windshields, wrecking classrooms by tossing around desks, or biting teachers and swearing incessantly, it’s 100% out of control. I often comment that these brats could use a good beating, but of course I don’t mean it the way it comes out. Unfortunately, I’m also very strongly of the opinion that I’m right.

Teachers are no longer allowed to touch students. They have to get permission slips to hug kids or hold their hands in the hallways. Recently, a teacher got written up by HR because she walked her (IEP “low” intelligence/skill) kids to the bathroom and waited for them to take them back to class. Never mind that at least two of her students had that very accommodation in their IEPs. I know of a teacher who, in a fit of absolute desperation, took a picture of a child doing something bad and threatened to tell the parents about it. The TEACHER was written up, and had to go to a mandatory meeting with her union rep, and all that stuff. It was seen only as “threatening the child”, and not as anything positive. I kid you not. There’s a reason that teachers are leaving the classrooms en masse. At this point, our school district has unlicensed people in doing teaching, because they cannot find the staff.

Read More

3 arrested following pro-Palestine protest at Elbit Systems in NH

Three people are facing charges following a pro-Palestine protest at Elbit Systems in Merrimack, New Hampshire, according to police.

Merrimack police said they received calls from employees at Elbit Systems, a defense contractor located at 220 Daniel Webster Highway, shortly before 8 a.m. saying that protestors were blocking the driveway and multiple people were believed to be on the roof of the building. Protesters have previously targeted Elbit Systems locations in Massachusetts and around the globe, alleging that the company is involved in Israel’s military campaign.

The Merrimack Fire Department was also called to the scene due to a report of smoke coming from the roof.

A preliminary investigation determined that the smoke that was coming from the building’s roof was caused by an incendiary device similar to ones later located on one of the suspects. While clearing the roof, officers noted additional damage consisting of more spraypainting, smashed skylights and damage to HVAC equipment.

The people attacked, vandalized, and attempt to burn down an Israeli owned company in the United States.

This is being sold as “Pro-Palestinian” but that’s a bunch of bullshit.

The people arrested were identified by police as Sophie Marika Ross, 22, of Housatonic, Massachusetts; Calla Mairead Walsh, 19, of Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Bridget Irene Shergalis, 27, of Dayville, Connecticut.

Calla Walsh works with the Mapping Project, supported by BDS.

The Mapping Project now has their own social media accounts so you can directly follow along with their important work!! @MappingProj48 https://t.co/r3kkC9pmNi

— Calla (@CallaWalsh) June 26, 2022

The Mapping Project is, ostensibly, a map of the businesses in the Boston area that should be boycotted for working with Israel.

In effect, it was a map of Jews and Jewish institutions.  Jewish day schools, Synagogues, Chabads, were on the list.

It came to the attention of Congress because it was being used by antisemitic extremists.

So one of the radical leaders who attacked an Israeli owned company also runs a doxxing map to track Jews.

She’s also, apparently, a supporter of the IRA and PLO.

This is unadulterated Jew-hatred and socialisr support for Palestinian terrorism.

And it happened half an hour from where I sit now.

Fucking fantastic.

Something a little more modern than my normal.