Gun Free Zone

Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.

Month: March 2024

.......

The Two Step Shuffle

Mar 31, 2024 awa 1 comment

Legal Court Dunce
(1100 words)

After Heller, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 8 (U.S. 2022). Justice Thomas went on Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. —id..

If the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the individual’s conduct, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” —id..

Applying the Bruen test in a manner consistent with Fyock and Alaniz, the Court asks, at Bruen’s first step, whether assault rifles are dangerous and unusual, with the burden on Plaintiffs to make a showing that would bring them within the ambit of Second Amendment protection. As discussed in detail below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown that the assault rifles at issue fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text. (Infra part IV.A.)
—Steven Rupp v. Xavier Becerra, No. 8:17-cv-00746, slip op. at 15 (C.D. Cal.)

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to claim that the Bruen court said that the plain text portion needed the challengers to prove anything apart from their conduct being within the ambit of the Second Amendment. There is never a need for the challengers to prove that an arm is not unusual or not dangerous.
Read More

.......

Easter Sunday: Be careful

Mar 31, 2024 Miguel.GFZ 9 comments

 

Between the Pro-Hamas Terrorist Cheerleaders, standard assholes and the White House making today a “Trans Day of Visibility,” you may expect being targeted at your church.

Suffer no fools.

Remind them (gently at first) that Christ resurrected today, but they most certainly will not have that choice if the screw with you or your family.

Carry if you can and if you cannot…

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Matthew 18:20

.

.......

Climate Warriors or the cult of stupid.

Mar 30, 2024 Miguel.GFZ 14 comments

They are pouring car oil on an electric truck.

Electric.

They are the idiots of Extinction Rebellion, the ones we have seen in UK and other places in Europe sitting on streets and gluing themselves to the pavement. They are fully here now.

This should be fun.

 

.......

Notice to Illegal Venezuelans

Mar 30, 2024 Miguel.GFZ 3 comments

Dear “Panas” (Buddies): Please remember you are no longer in Venezuela. There is not one law covering the US, but every state has its own variation of laws that makes them unique. And while in California or New York you could get away with “invading” somebody’s property and the claiming it as yours, in Texas, Florida, Tennessee and other states, you can get shot for your stupid ignorance of how shit goes here and paying attention at some idiot in Instagram telling you to squat.

Para resumir (To summarize): You invade, we shoot.

.......

Lara v. PA, Krause dissenting

Mar 30, 2024 awa 2 comments

Legal Court Dunce
B.L.U.F.
Judge Krause beclowns himself in his written dissent. He should have kept his mouth shut so people only thought him a foold. Instead, he chose to write his opinion, removing all doubt.
(2000 words)

When they ratified the Second Amendment, our Founders did not intend to bind the nation in a straitjacket of 18th-century legislation, nor did they mean to prevent future generations from protecting themselves against gun violence more rampant and destructive than the Founders could have possibly imagined. At a minimum, one would think that the states’ understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of the “Second Founding”—the moment in 1868 when they incorporated the Bill of Rights against themselves—is part of “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation” informing the constitutionality of modern-day regulations.
—New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 8 (U.S. 2022) Krause, dissenting

The Third Circuit court declined to rehear Lara en banc. This left the merit panel’s opinion that 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are part of the people and their rights shall not be infringed.

Six of the 14 judges would have granted the rehearing. Judge Krause decided to beclown himself with a written dissent.

When The People ratified the Bill of Rights, they did not intend to bind the nation in a straightjacket. They intended to bind the government in a straightjacket.

Our constitution is unusual in that it is built around limiting the government as much as possible, while reserving for the state and the people as much power as they can retain.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. is some of the strongest language in the constitution. It is a straightjacket, binding the government. The government has succeeded in escaping that straightjacket. We are fighting to get it back into that straightjacket.

The Supreme Court, has stated many times, that the meaning of the plain text of the constitution is set when it was adopted and the meaning of the plain text of the amendments is set when the amendment is ratified.
Read More