Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
Some things are deeply ingrained in your brain such as your Mass rituals learned in Spanish when I was a kid. I was trying to do them in English, so I got the appropriate version (and in the phone, no less!) but it was a total failure. There was a literal upheaval in my brain as the original software conflicted with the new input and my oral output went from gibberish to shut down.
Oh well.
…fulfilling the needs comes naturally.
A former Tennessee official and her husbanded pleaded guilty on Thursday to illegally producing “hundreds” Tennessee driver’s licenses for sale to illegal immigrants.
Cheryl Huff and husband Mario Paz-Mejia, both of Knoxville, pleaded guilty to one “count of conspiracy to produce, without lawful authority, identification documents or false identification documents,” according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which revealed in a press release that Huff abused her position at the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security (TDSHS) to create the illicit documents.
For the measly sum of $2,500, an illegal alien would walk out with a very well backed TN DL or ID card, we are talking the real thing and not some photoshopped card printed in some obscure garage.
Paz-Mejia also assisted his customers in obtaining false citizenship and residency documents—two requirements to obtain a Tennessee driver’s license—including fraudulent lease agreements to establish proof of Tennessee residency, and false birth certificates, Social Security cards, and driver’s licenses from other states and U.S. territories to establish proof of citizenship or legal residency in the United States.
…Huff used her access to TDSHS’s internal software to confirm that the names and information on the false citizenship and residency documents used by Paz-Mejia’s customers could be used to obtain a Tennessee driver’s license or identification card. For example, on June 23, 2021, Paz-Mejia texted Huff the name, date of birth, and personal information used on false identification documents, asking Huff to “check that please.” Huff responded, “All of these are not on file. They’re good.”
After Paz-Mejia’s customers acquired false citizenship and residency documents, Paz-Mejia arranged to meet them at a Knoxville-area DSC before business hours. With Huff’s assistance, Paz-Mejia escorted his customers into DSCs before business hours, including through a backdoor employee-only entrance. Once Paz-Mejia and his customers were inside, Huff initiated driver’s license applications for the customers using TDSHS software. Huff also instructed subordinate DSC employees to complete applications and issue driver’s licenses to many of Paz-Mejia’s customers.
Unless they kept a record of the licenses, those people (including military-age males of certain hostile countries) with the not-fake license are walking around with IDs that will survive any standard review simply because they were issued by the system supposed to be reliable and truthful.
But we are the biggest threat to the stability of our nation.
B.L.U.F.
A rogue, agenda driven, judge in Massachusetts finds that “Assault Weapons” and “Large Capacity Magazines” can be banned because the Supreme Court didn’t thing “common use” through.
And besides, they are dangerous, so they can be banned.
(3600 words)
Just skimming through the first part, which for the most part is the background of the case, the following sticks out
It is always a sign of a rogue court when they find a reason to use “assault weapon”. This is worsened because they cite to a First Circuit court case from 2019, before Bruen.
The court then correctly cites Winter for the factors in granting a preliminary injunction. The takeaway, for me, is that they cite to Ryan v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,974 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2020) as the First Circuit’s Winter equivalent.
The gist of both Winter and Ryan v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement is that the court needs to evaluate if the movant is likely to prevail on the merits. Both cases say that if the movant is not likely to win on the merits, that is where the court should stop.
There was a minor uproar on the news about a case where a gun owner shot an unleashed dog, and the DA did not charge him citing lack of evidence of wrongdoing. The dog was a German shepherd which may have added to the controversy since it was not a Pit Bull, and we know that GS are incapable of biting humans (sarcasm).
In a follow up article, we find this scary piece of comment:
News 2 spoke with attorney Ben Powers about the potential reasons why the DA isn’t pursuing charges. Powers is not representing anyone involved, but is familiar with the case and relevant laws.
“Tennessee has a lot of laws about how we put guns in people’s hands, but we don’t have as many laws about how we responsibly hold that gun owner accountable,” Powers said.
How can someone shoot a dog in a Nashville, TN park without facing charges? (wkrn.com)
Mr. Powers is a Criminal Defense attorney and I find his comment a bit scary as it gives the impression that by default, we are guilty of a crime whenever we use a firearm, but the only reason we are not jailed is because the appropriate laws have not been passed.
I hope he has been misquoted because I would think twice/thrice before hiring him in a case involving a shooting. That comment makes him sound like he has a particular distaste for folks using weapons in self-defense and may cast a doubt on his future performance on behalf of a client.
I forget where I read that 99% of defense lawyers are mitigators, not litigators. They are more concerned about making a deal for less years than the district attorney is willing to shove on somebody’s legal rectum rather than making sure justice is served and an innocent client goes free.
Duncan v. Bonta 23-55805 (9th Cir). The 9th circuit granted a stay pending the outcome of the appeal. They will be hearing oral arguments on March 18, 2024. This means that The People living in California will be deprived of their civil rights until the 9th returns their opinion.
This is sickening because the Supreme Court already told the Ninth they got it wrong when they GVRed this case after Bruen
Renna v. Becerra is still in a holding pattern. The District court ordered an injunction, then stayed the injunction pending resolution in the Ninth Circuit court. That was back in April. Still no movement on the case.
Barnett v. Raoul 23-cv-00209 (S.D. Illinois) is slowly moving forward. The parties agree that this case is going to seek cert. with the Supreme Court. Therefore, they are doing discovery to have facts on record. Everybody in the case is dotting “i”s and crossing “t”s to make sure the case is processed correctly.
Most of this is because the Seventh Circuit court has too many agenda driving rogue judges on it.
Carralero v. Bonta, 8:23-cv-01798, (C.D. Cal.) was our win from Wednesday, Friday, the state gave notice that they would be appealing. Until the Ninth Circuit grants the stay, many of the sensitive places restrictions in California are enjoined.
This could be good news for the 2A community. If the en banc panel that is messing with Virginia Duncan tries to grab this case, it will be clear that they are cheating. If a different three judge panel gets this case, they could rule for The People.
The state should be procedurally barred from asking for a stay on the injunction because they have not asked the district court for a stay.
Reno May v. Robert Bonta, 8:23-cv-01696, (C.D. Cal.) sees the state appealing to the Ninth Circuit. Same old stuff as Carralero
Kipke v. Moore, 1:23-cv-01293, (D. Maryland) is having numerous supplemental authority filings. The plaintiffs (good guys) have brought up the S.D. California win for The People. The state is bringing up the Antonyuk decision by the Second Circuit.
Of course, the state has to cheat. They only mention the parts of the Second Circuit’s opinion that support them, totally omitting the few places where the Second eviscerated their regulation.
Bains v. American Tactical, Inc., 6:23-cv-06208, (W.D.N.Y.) is the lawfare against gun manufactures and resellers for the acts of bad people. The current attack is to claim that the selling of firearms creates a public nuisance. Being a public nuisance is against the law, so the manufacturer or reseller are responsible for an asshole shooting others.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 1:23-cv-02563, (D. Colo.) is making its way through the Tenth Circuit court after losing at the district court level. There, the district court found that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover waiting periods.
Like always, the state moves at a snails pace when it means that The People will be denied their rights longer.
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Incorporated v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, 2:23-cv-10169, (C.D. Cal.) is a new case. It was filed in early December. It challenges the cost in time and money to get permits to carry in certain locations in California.
More importantly, it challenges the lack of reciprocity. California does not recognize any other state’s CCW. California does not allow out of state residents to get California CCWs. This means that out of state residents are denied the right to carry in California.
This flies directly in the face of Bruen. This could be the start of nationwide reciprocity. I can certainly dream.
I hate traveling into Mordor. The state was horrible before Bruen, since Bruen it has just gotten worse. They still have laws on the books that require people to have state permission to purchase or posses ammunition or ammunition components.
There are many more, but this gives a sampling. I’m watching for a request for certiorari from Bevis out of Illinois. They made a request on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, which was denied. A straight-up ask might be granted.
I am not against the Holidays, but I am fed up with the way people act this time of the year. For being the season of peace and love to all, many become over-aggressive assholes, so de-escalation has to be present in your first-response strategy.
Some days ago, I went to pick somebody up from a hospital in Nashville. Most of these places have now a valet service and if you have any experience with them, you know they tend to be very forceful about getting business and very protective of what they deem “their lanes” which may or may not include those for dropping out and picking up patients. It seems that I violated such a DMZ when I went to get somebody from the lobby of the hospital, and I was confronted by the head asshole valet who was taking pics of my license plate. In a very confrontational tone of voice, he went off to explain why I had committed a mortal parkin sin. His attitude was as if he wanted me to reply in kind so some of fight ensued. But when I went “I am so sorry, I apologize and I promise I will not make this mistake again” while sounding genuinely contrite (I wasn’t) threw him off track. You could see his brain skipping gears behind his eyes and he just froze for a couple of seconds, unable to respond.
We got in the car, drove away, and I thought of two things: One was that de-escalation worked and a silly situation was avoided. But the other one is that those two seconds the asshole froze could have been enough to initiate defensive measures if the situation warranted it. Doing or saying the unexpected throws people off and that is something we need to keep in mind.
This is not the best of examples, but it gives you the idea.
We had great news out of California, surprisingly. The court in Reno May v. Robert Bonta has issued an injunction:
This is a complete win for the plaintiffs (good guys).
This was a complete surprise. In addition, the state has not filed their intent to appeal. In the past, in California, they have filed their intent to appeal within hours of a negative order by the judge.
Over in the D.C. Circuit Court, they have scheduled arguments for February, without input from the parties. This is means that the Circuit isn’t going to let this drag out.
There are numerous filings that came out late yesterday that I’ll be looking over.
For those that are bored with reloading, I’m reaching the end of that series. I have received so many good comments that have been helpful. Things to try, things to not do.
I’m currently in the process of machining my own 1/16in drill bit extension, as well as my version of a case trimming jig for use on a drill press or milling machine. It is likely that I’ll make a stuck case removal gizmo.
One of those things where I’ll spend 6 hours in the shop to make something that costs less than $20 from Amazon.
The strange thing, is that the simple drill extension is available for only $59 from McMaster-Carr. One would think a drill extension would be lower cost.
The comments are open, please feel free to let us know what you are thinking.