The snow is starting to fall. The wood rack is full. Time to gather around the woodstove to enjoy the warmth.

Any feedback for us, feel free to let us know.

What firearm did you purchase and decide it just wasn’t for you?

Have you have you ever picked up a firearm and had “hate at first manipulation?”

On Nov 7th, 2022 Judge Suddaby issued his preliminary injunction enjoying parts of the NY State CCIA.

Most of the “good moral character” requirements were enjoined as well as the intrusive requirements the state was using to make that determination. Along with the good moral character being enjoined, Suddaby also said that many of the locations cited as “sensitive places” were not. He also enjoined enforcing the “opt into the 2nd” law where there had to be affirmative signage on a location to allow CCWs to carry.

Today the Second Circuit court granted an emergency stay of Suddaby’s order. We’ll update this article once we have the text of that stay.

This was just a three judge panel that issued the stay.

Interestingly the injunction issued against restricting the right to carry in a place of worship is still in place.

Motion For Emergency interim stay of temporary restraining order, and stay of order pending appeal

A few years ago there was a Photoshop’ed image making the rounds in the gun rights community. It showed a bunch of brits marching against “knife violence”. It was obviously a fake image because for years we had been saying “What’s next? If you take our guns you’ll be back to take our knives and then our axes until there is nothing left.”

We were told “It will never happen.”

The image wasn’t faked. It was real.

Lots of videos and news articles flow across my feeds and one was interesting given the current pushes of gun infringers, the police showing up at a man’s door to confiscate his firearms. The video thumbnail didn’t give enough context so I clicked through to watch. What I observed was eye opening.

First, this is taking place in Great Britain, where they are subjects, not citizens. There is no “right” to keep and bear arms. Instead you have a privilege granted to you by the government to own a limited selection of firearms.

The modern history of gun control in England starts in 1903 with the “Pistols Act”. This was one of those “it isn’t a big deal so why fight it” sort of laws.

It said that before you could purchase a pistol you had to either had to have a gun license or game/hunting license or be able to prove it was only going to be used on your own property. There was another clause that allowed you to purchase a pistol if you had a signed statement from the police saying you were going to be out of country for at least six months.

In other words, this was a step in getting firearm owners registered.

There was no real control because you could get a gun license by going to the post office and purchasing one, on demand.

If there were calls of “Slippery Slope!” nobody cared enough and nobody believed it.

After WWI the communists were pushing everywhere. There was a huge influx of firearms into the country and the government was afraid of civil unrest. This lead to the Firearms Act of 1920.

This changed the requirements for owning a firearm from just buying a “gun license” to getting a “firearm certificate”. A firearm certificate was good for three years and specified the firearm and amount of ammunition that the holder could possess. It didn’t require serial numbers but just a list of firearms.

The issuing of certificates was via the local chief of constables and was a “may issue”. The applicant had to have good moral character and good reason for needing a certificate. Good moral character is my turn of phrase and may or may not be in the actual law.

The slippery slope was in action but again, without a culture of firearms, the people that were most affected lived in places where the local chief constable granted certificates. Those that lived in cities didn’t grant as many but there were not as many applicants.

You ended up with the sort of mish-mash that you see in New York or California where depending on where you live the ability to get a CCW was either nearly impossible or as easy as asking and paying your fees. This was so well known that the State of New York actually made an exception for New York City which said that CCWs from the rest of New York State were not valid in New York City.

In 1937 they passed another Firearms Act to tighten up the requirements. It raised minimum age to purchase from 14 to 17. It extended the act to cover shotguns and smooth-bore weapons. It required the military to issue Firearm Certificates for machine guns, allowed the Chief Constable to add conditions on firearm certificates.

Finally it removed self-defense as a good reason for wanting a firearm certificate. “firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger.”

The slippery slope shows itself yet again. This is just another small step.

In 1968 they passed another “Firearms Act”. This included bans on certain weapons. Extended shotgun requirements from just SBS to all shotguns. It also introduced a more complete version of “prohibited person”.

It is unclear from my source (lazy, single sourcing it today, and not root sources) doesn’t make it clear which of the firearms act required every firearm to be registered with serial numbers.

By 1988 they needed still another firearms act. Still more restrictions and the gun owners barely whimpered.

In 1997, knowing who owned firearms, what makes models and serial numbers they had, and how much ammunition, the government banned most guns and went collecting.

Still more gun control showed up in 2006.

In 2022 a person in Great Britain still needs government permission to own a firearm. What firearms are allowed is strictly limited. The firearm and shotgun certificates have to be renewed every 3 years. Many Brits store their firearms at an RFD (think FFL with storage facilities) because of “safe storage” laws.

Being a government this means that things don’t work right nor do the work rapidly. The following video talks about the police going around to take weapons from “shooters”. A shooter in Britain is somebody that shoots firearms.

The police managed to mess up people firearm certificates, leaving firearms off or leaving the list of firearms blank. As far as I can tell this means tat the shooter could be in violation of British law because they have a gun that is not listed on their permission slip.

These shooters contacted the right authorities to get things correct.

In one case the police showed up to take the firearms while “things were being figured out.” Of course afterwards it proved difficult for the person to get their firearms back.

In another case the police removed a shooter’s firearms because he “had a new medical diagnosis” He had been diagnosed with a learning disability but the police took his firearms and required him to get a psychiatrists statement that he wasn’t a threat to himself or others. Even after that he had difficulties in getting his firearms back.

Later they came back again because of their mistake on his firearm certificate. This time he stood his ground and refused.

In order to protect is firearms from confiscation, he now stores them with his local RFD.

All of this sounds so much like the infringements that are being pushed here in the states.

This is why we never stop fighting for our rights. We don’t compromise. “Will Not Be Infringed!”

So go watch the video. It is worthwhile to see where gun control can lead. And remember, London is suffering from huge amounts of violent “knife crime”.

When you get done watching, there is the final point.

Did you notice that the arguments are the same “shooters are the most law abiding” was the one that got me.

But the one that was sickening to me, was how gently the fought back. They aren’t fighting for the right to keep and bear arms. To be free Citizens, they are fighting for the government to give them their permission slips back. They can’t even conceive of freedom from the government control.

May you continue to chase your dreams.

This is the alleged quote President Andrew Jackson (D) when the Supreme Court decided Worcester v. Georgia

Worcester v. Georgia was about a law in Georgia which required state permission for a non native (Indian) to be on native lands. Worcester was a minister that lived with the Indians, was translating the bible into Cherokee, and in general trying to do good things. This was prior to the Trail of Tears.

The court found that it was unconstitutional and ordered Worcester freed. The state of Georgia refused. The federal government did nothing and the Supreme Court did not request federal law enforcement to do anything.

Due to a multitude of changes this was never pushed to an extreme and in 1832 Jackson said that the Supreme Court was the final say in what is Constitutional. Prior to that declaration, Jackson believed that the President and the Supreme Court were equal in that judgement.

So the question comes up, over and over again, what if the Supreme court decides that some part of gun control is unconstitutional and the states continue to enforce those laws?

Consider the following, somebody decides to make a select fire AR-15. I.e. they drill the fourth hole and put in all the right parts. They never take the gun out of state, they never cross state lines, they don’t do anything criminal with that firearm other than possessing it.

A state, like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York or California, arrests and charges this person under their assault weapons ban.

Instead of attacking just the assault weapons ban our defendant decides to attack the NFA and the AWB at the same time. Because the feds are lined up to prosecute him for the machine gun if the state doesn’t put him away. There is precedent for people being heard in court over the possibility of being charged. In first amendment cases this is called “a chilling effect”.

If you don’t know if a particular statement is protected speech you are unlikely to speak in fear of being prosecuted. So even if the law doesn’t explicitly deam your speech “illegal” the fact that it could be stretched to do so is enough for it to be considered an infringement of your rights.

This is the issue with “hate speech” regulations. Hate speech is always in the eyes of the victim. As such there is no way to know prior to making the statement how that person will interpret that word.

That exists right here, right now. If I put that word “here” to say that this word is currently considered hate speech, that one word could be used to label this entire site as “full of hate speech.” There was a professor that was on a overnight class trip. His students asked him a question and he responded using that word to say “don’t use ‘word'” Him saying don’t use it got him fired and canceled.

Regardless, in our example if it happens in California then the 9th circus hears the case and immediately decides that all is constitutional. The cases on the east coast go to different circuit courts which have already shown a tendency to believe that the state is right in balancing needs.

So it ends up in the Supreme Court where Justice Thomas gets to write another slapdown of the gun controllers.

The regent for Joe Biden, President for life, makes the statement “Hell Yes, we are taking those guns!” The gun infringing states then refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court opinion.

Thus the court can not get the federal government to intervene nor is the federal government going to send in the troops to enforce anything.

And here is where it gets dicey. We the People of these United States have given the government temporary power in limited form. We are not subjects. We are citizens.

First I expect there to be a huge amount of civil disobedience. Currently Connecticut is experiencing the larges act of civil disobedience known in the US. The number of “assault weapons” that were registered under the requirements of their AWB.

So there will be civil disobedience. Second, there are still a large number of Law Enforcement Officers that do believe in the constitution. They will refuse to enforce.

Finally, there will be deaths.

In the novel Friday by Robert A. Heinlein the constable got an “illegal” order and decided it was the right thing to do to go investigate and arrest. He “rushed” Friday and ended up dead.

There are going to be “go getter” types that want to do the gun grab. For some of them there will be death instead. For some gun owners there will be death. And it will get bloody.

We’ve been covering how some judges are adhering to the Bruen decision and others are not.  The ones that are not are distinct in that they all seem to be stretching to find something that isn’t there or to find a way to invert the rules.

Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods. A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality. That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.

What a wonderful turn of phrase.

He is right. For the longest time the second was treated as the red haired stepchild. There is no other right that has had so many restrictions put on it. There is no other right which has been so “balanced” by government wants. The second was treated as a might have run.

As people that are not involved in the criminal court system we look to avoid being embroiled in the law. I.e. we want to be law abiding people. We also want to be able to defend ourselves and our family. That means we want laws that allow us to keep and bear arms freely.

Laws that create a legal minefield of where we can carry and where we can not are designed to make it so hard to carry legally that we just don’t. You are going to stop at the Post Office after work? Is it worth it to carry today then?

I’ve had a courthouse guard hassle me because I had a holster on my hip. No gun. Just the holster.

I want this to stop. I think that you want it to stop as well.

But the Bruen opinion bites much deeper than “just leave us alone.” It is going to roll back many of the gun control laws.

In United States of America v. Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan another part of the Gun control laws took a hit. And this one will start the fall of red flag laws. U.S. District Judge David Counts ordered that Perez-Gallan’s petition to dismiss be granted.

Perez-Gallan was being charged with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. He was called “prohibited” because there was a restraining order against him.

That’s it. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) it is a crime to possess a firearm while subject to a court order.

The gist of Judge Count’s order is that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional.

This would mean that all Red Flag laws are also unconstitutional.

As the judge stated, until 1994 there was no law prohibiting a person under court order from possessing a firearm. This is not within the history or tradition of the second amendment in 1791.

All cases attacking 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) have been denied because of standing. They happened prior to the Heller opinion in 2008. Thus the courts ruled that the “right to bear arms” was a collective right.

It is likely that over the next dozen years or so we are going to see the gutting of the GCA and the NFA. Regardless of the games that the gun rights infringers continue to play.
United State of America v. Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan – Memorandum Opinion

Part of the wonder of the Bruen decision was the two fold win of no more “two step analysis” and a requirement that the government show that there was an analigus law in 1791 at the time of adoption of the second amendment.

Text and history of the second amendment is the controlling feature of what infringements are allowed.

We have now seen two different cases where the state is turning this upside down.

In one case the judge ruled against an injunction because “The clear reading of the second amendment does not protect the right to manufacture firearms”.  In this case the Judge and the state are arguing that the plaintiffs must provide some sort of historical reference showing that the text and traditions of the second amendment support the manufacture of firearms.

The actual opinion says that the government must show that there is a gun control law that banned or limited the manufacturing of firearms by individuals in 1791.  Thus the Judge has turned the argument upside down.  They have again made it so the plaintiff must prove that the constitution covers their claim via text and tradition.

In California they are doing the same thing.  The state has stated that since the second amendment doesn’t mention magazines and because magazines are not required for a firearm to function that they are ok to ban magazines.

When the Bruen opinion came out we identified the weaknesses in the opinion.  Those came down to “sensitive places” and “uncommon firearms”.  We knew they would look for other methods, and it is clear that they are following cases as much as we are.

In each of the suits brought under Bruen they have watched to see what stuck and what didn’t.

We had one judge state that it wasn’t his job to be a historian, even though that is exactly his job under the American “common law” ideals.  Research is a huge part of dealing the law.  We had another judge decide that “manufacturing” isn’t part of “keep and bear”.  Now the state is arguing again that the plain reading of the constitution doesn’t include magazines.

Keep an eye on how they manipulate the language of the decision. This is how they have been doing this for the last 70 years.