awa

Only in America!

Some asshole did it again. Another school shooting.

The 14-year-old asshole got a hold of his father’s guns, went back to the school and killed eight kids along with a security guard.

The police have arrested the asshole. When arrested, he had a target list of kids he intended to kill and where they were going to be located at the time.

In addition to two guns, he also had a couple of Molotov cocktails.

There were an additional six students injured. At least one is in serious condition.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the community as they deal with this tragedy in the Balkan region of Serbia.

Postscript: there was a second school shooting in Serbia shortly after this one.

SCOTUS is watching

Back in December 2022, I posted NY CCIA challenge at SCOTUS. The GOA challenged the Second Circuit Court’s stay regarding an injunction from Judge Suddaby.

Judge Suddaby enjoined the state from enforcing parts of the CCIA. The state ran to the Second Circuit Court, which heard the request for an emergency stay on an expedited schedule. Of course, the Second Circuit issued the stay.

The stay was just a single sentence, it was not particularly enlightening as to why the stay was granted.

GOA then took the stay to SCOTUS, alleging that the Second Circuit Court had not given them anything to argue and requesting that SCOTUS vacate the Second Circuit Court’s stay. Justice Sotoymyer did something that shocked me. She told the state to file an argument with her within the week, over Christmas.

In early January, SCOTUS denied overturning the stay, but in an unusual turn of events, Justice Alito(?) and Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. In that opinion, they said that the reason they believed the court denied the motion was for procedural reasons.

In the state’s filings, they claimed that the case was on an expedited schedule for the appeal to be heard. This was false. Only the request for the stay was expedited. Alito and Thomas said that if the Second Circuit Court didn’t hear the case and provide good justification for the stay, that GOA should come back to SCOTUS.

This put the Second Circuit Court on notice that they could not just let the case sit there for an extended length of time. Oral arguments were heard by the Second Circuit Court on March 20th, 2023.

We are waiting for the results of that hearing.

GOOD NEWS

Over in the Seventh Circuit Court, they are hearing Robert Bevis v. City of Naperville, 23-1353, (7th Cir.) which is the City of Naperville’s AWB/LCM ban.

The Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs (good guys) Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal Mot. for Inj. Pending Appeal, Robert Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 23-1353 (7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023), ECF No. 8.

Following in the steps of the Second Circuit Court, their order is well-thought-out and extensive:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for an injunction pending appeal is DENIED.
Order Robert Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 23-1353 (7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023), ECF No. 51

Unhappy with this result, the National Association for Gun Rights; Robert C. Bevis; and Law Weapons, Inc. filed an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review.

They are asking the Supreme Court to grant an injunction pending the Seventh Circuit Court issuing an opinion on the appeal.

And here is the great news:

Response to application (22A948) requested by Justice Barrett, due May 8, 2023, by noon (EDT).
National Association for Gun Rights, et al., Applicants v. City of Naperville, Illinois, et al., No. 22-451 (SCOTUS May 1, 2023)

The Supreme Court is watching these gun control cases moving forward. Maybe this is a chance for them to tell the inferior courts to “do the right thing”.

A Chevron case to be heard by SCOTUS

In Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council I discussed a little about Chevron deference. This is the case law that allows the federal government to say “We are the experts, our interpretation of the law is always correct.”

I am not qualified to know whether the original decision was a good decision or not, I believe it was not. Regardless, it has been abused for decades at this point.

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc v. Gina Raimondo, 21-5166 (D.C. Cir. 2022). This case has nothing to do with the Second Amendment directly, but it holds a great deal of potential for reigning in the ATF and other federal agencies.

The gist of the case is that congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in 1976. The MSA extended the regulatory reach of the “National Marine Fisheries Service”. It was passed to to conserve and manage the fishery resources…of the United States16 U.S.C. § 1801 (b)(1).

This is the law that is designed to stop overfishing of territorial waters of the US.

In September 2018, the NMFS submitted the Omnibus Amendment to the Service. This opened a commenting period. The commenting period ended and the Omnibus Amendment to the Service was approved. The Final Rule was published in February 2020.

Sort of like the ATF did bump stocks and pistol braces. They publish the proposed rule. Open for comments, then do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

At issue in the Omnibus Amendment is that the NMFS decided that they were going to make the fishing boats pay to have an inspector on board and to force the fishing boats to accept an inspector. Space is at a premium aboard ships, so having a deadhead onboard worsens it for everyone. In addition, the government man isn’t actually doing any work. All he does is run his clipboard looking for ways to ding the boat.

This inspector is paid a percentage of the value of the catch.

In other words, the government gets to force a fishing boat to take an inspector onboard and the fishing boat has the pleasure of paying that inspector to eat their food, take up space, and in general to be a government busybody.

The Question

Read More

Short Link Dump

 

I was up far too late for yesterday’s post, around 0200. Which was better than the night before when I was up until 0330 getting that post out.

The following links will contain some older news articles, mostly because I’ve not had a link dump in a while. Hopefully, something interesting in the dump

Barnett v Raoul Illinois AWB/LCM bans Good news

B.L.U.F. I need another image with a cheerleader for courts that get it right. After fighting my way through the monstrosity from yesterday, this Memorandum and Order is great news for the Second Amendment community. This is (hopefully?) a short article, I might write something longer about our win in the future.


My wife read yesterday’s article and was upset about the Court’s opinion Herrera v. Raoul Illinois AWB/LCM ban. Later in the day, I was watching Guns and Gadgets on YouTube talking about Barnett v Raoul and she got the cases mixed up. Understandable.

What I told her was that in Barnett v. Raoul the state was going to appeal, and it would make its way to the Seventh Circuit court. I predict that all of these cases from the district level will be consolidated. This case is already a consolidation of four cases.

I was right. The stated did file for an appeal the same day the order came down and has also filed a motion for this Court to stay the injunction pending appeal.

The state argues that since this court didn’t go along with the other court’s opinion, that this court should stay its injunction. “For consistency”, don’t you know. The state is also claiming that since the Seventh Circuit did not choose to grant a preliminary injunction in those other cases, this court is going against the wishes of the Seventh Circuit.

I hope that his court stands its ground and makes the state get an injunction from the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The question

Are assault weapons band and large capacity magazine bans constitutional?

Conclusion

No.

Ok, maybe a bit more

Definition of Protected Arm under The Second Amendment

Read More