Month: February 2024

GD&T, oh my, I still don’t get it.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” attributed to Sir Walter Scott, 1808.

Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing, or GD&T, is a system of symbols, definitions, and practices designed to eliminate miscommunications between the description of an item and its real-world implementation. It removes unintentional deceptions.

This was supposed to be sharing my understanding, instead it highlights, to me, that I do not fully understand.
Read More

Jackson v. San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014)

Legal History
B.L.U.F.
A look at a decision in the Ninth Circuit where The People lost.

Today, that lose is a win. The Ninth and, by reference, the Seventh have given The People powerful case law to fight the rogue states and courts.
(1600 words)


Sometimes bad case law gets unusually good results.

This appeal raises the question whether two of San Francisco’s firearm and ammunition regulations, which limit but do not destroy Second Amendment rights, are constitutional. We conclude that both regulations withstand constitutional scrutiny, and affirm the district court’s denial of Jackson’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Espanola Jackson V. City and County of San Francis, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)

We can see just how well the Ninth Circuit honors the constitution. The unqualified command is “shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say “shall not be destroyed”. The arrogance of these rogue judges drives me mad.

The law being challenged was a gun storage law and a ban on hollow point ammunition. The Ninth made interesting findings about the conduct implicating the Second Amendment. They then said that since the infringement didn’t destroy the Second Amendment protected right, that intermediate scrutiny should be applied.

Having decided on intermediate scrutiny, the state merely stated that they believed it would be good for the state, and the Ninth gave the infringement their stamp of approval.

We aren’t concerned about Jackson losing, that is done with, we care about the findings that we can use today.

Do Arm Storage Laws Implicate the Plain Text of the Second Amendment?

Read More

TN Gun Bills: SB2788 & SB2763

Good bills for a change! (Don’t worry, a bunch of fresh bad ones are out there)

SB2788 by Todd (R)

As introduced, allows law enforcement officers, whether on-duty or off-duty, retired law enforcement officers, active duty and retired members of the armed forces of the United States, whether in discharge of official duties or not, and enhanced handgun carry permit holders, except in certain circumstances, to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with or without the intent to go armed, a handgun in any Pre-K-12 public school building or bus, school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field, or any other property owned, operated, or while in use by any public board of education or Pre-K-12 school.

Hello Campus Carry. And gets rid of the annoying Schrödinger GFZ of people suddenly illegally carrying in public places just because a school bus suddenly and unannounced dropped a bunch of kids for a field day.

SB2763 by Bowling (R)

 As introduced, preempts the entire field of legislation regarding extreme risk protection orders to the exclusion of all county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments, or regulation; declares a federal statute, rule, executive order, or a federal judicial order that has the effect of enforcing an extreme risk protection order to be null and void; creates a Class A misdemeanor offense of attempting to enforce a federally implemented extreme risk protection order. –

In the past, State’s preemption has proven to be one of the most effective ways to eliminate the hodgepodge or multiple laws and regulations for multiple jurisdictions which leads to the self-censuring and self-restriction of Rights.  And it is easier to choke bad laws at one location that waste time and resources on multiple fronts.

 

No honey, you are the one to blame.

This headline caught my attention. I mean, we know we cannot depend on police to keep us safe all the time, right?

But you do need to make an effort on your own safety.  The more I read, the worse it got.

MURFEESBORO, Tenn. (WTVF) — Elbony Weatherspoon says she’s lucky to be alive.

Her ex-boyfriend threatened to kill her and himself with Weatherspoon’s gun, but it was only after she got proof that she said Murfreesboro Police were quick to act.

Officers responded to Weatherspoon’s home back in August to find Michael Thibodeau had barricaded himself inside, armed with the gun Weatherspoon reported missing two days earlier.

Police used tear gas and rubber bullets during a three-hour standoff before Thibodeau finally surrendered.

He was later charged with aggravated domestic assault, vandalism and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.

Murfreesboro woman says police failed to help after ex-boyfriend threatened her (newschannel5.com)

Man, that ended up almost harsh.

 

Thibodeau flipped over furniture, fired several rounds in the floors and punched holes in the walls.
What made matters worse for Weatherspoon was that her renter’s insurance had just lapsed, leaving her with no way of paying for damages and no home for her three children.

Damn! That has to suck

All this from a man Weatherspoon had only dated for three weeks.

Wait, what? 3 weeks only? The guys just flipped like a switch?

Weatherspoon ran a check on everything about Thibodeau before the two began dating. She ran a credit check, reached out to friends for references, and found nothing out of the ordinary. Weatherspoon did find a criminal history but noticed most of the charges had been dismissed. What she didn’t know was why so many charges had been dismissed.

Hmmm, criminal history. Not for nothing but that tends to be a big effing clue.

Weatherspoon said she first noticed something was wrong when Thibodeau began posting strange things on social media.
Soon, Thibodeau’s own family was calling to warn Weatherspoon that he wasn’t taking his medication.

His own family is sending you warning flares, but you chose not to act upon them? Medication is another effing clue. But wait, it gets better…OK worse.

Two days before Thibodeau destroyed her home, Weatherspoon called Murfreesboro Police saying she had given Thibodeau an ultimatum.

“I told him either you’re going to go to a mental hospital, you’re going to get checked or we can no longer talk anymore,” Weatherspoon said.

Body camera footage from that day showed officers responding to Weatherspoon’s home. Officers asked if Thibodeau had been physical with her, but she said it was all verbal.

Weatherspoon then told officers that her 9mm pistol was missing. She said the gun was in plain view when Thibodeau was at the house, but now she can’t find it.

Let’s review: Woman with three kids, dates a man with a criminal history and has been warned by his own family he is not taking medication, allows him in her house where her three kids live and there is an unsecured gun in the premises, but the cops are to blame when shit goes off the rails?

No dear, you fucked up and endangered your kids for a piece of male sausage.

 

 

 

Judge Roger T. Benitez

Applying Bruen’s new lesson, this Court’s conclusion remains the same: the California ammunition background check laws violate a citizen’s right to bear arms. Once it becomes clear that acquiring ammunition is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should be no surprise to discover that the government is unable to do that which it must now do: demonstrate that California’s first-of-its-kind sweeping statewide restriction on buying firearm ammunition is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Because these laws are not consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition, they must yield to the Constitution.
Espanola Jackson V. City and County of San Francis, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)
All agree that the ammunition necessary to use a gun is covered by the Second Amendment’s protection for keeping and bearing arms. The Attorney General correctly concedes that, “[e]ven though the Second Amendment does not reference a right to acquire or purchase Arms or mention ammunition, it ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.’” The Attorney General agrees that the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense, “would include a ‘corresponding right’ to ‘obtain bullets necessary to use’ firearms for self-defense.”
id. at 14
In contrast, the Attorney General makes two arguments to end the case here, at the textual level, before he has to shoulder the burden of demonstrating a history and tradition of constitutional ammunition background checks. First, he retreats and says that purchasing ammunition without a background check is not really covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment or any ancillary right. Second, he says that the background check laws are simply “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” Neither argument is persuasive. The first argument employs a rhetorical device to over-describe in detail the asserted constitutional wrong. Having over-described the alleged constitutional right, it is then argued that the detailed description of the asserted right is not covered by the plain text of the Constitution.
id. at 15

I’m going to end here with the following, it is important to learn the arguments of our enemies. Here the method they are using is “over-describing”.

The right is the right to keep and bear arms. Those words do not include the words “to stop bad guys when they burst into my home.” Yet the state does argue that the plain text does not cover the more descriptive words.

We must remain focused on using the right argument, the right conduct. The conduct we wish to do is to keep and bear arms. That includes the right to acquire arms. It includes the right to acquire the acquirements to outfit and use those arms.

The state can not ban magazines nor can they ban optics. Those are both arms and both are protected.