I was TDY a large part of Friday and again on Sunday. There is an article started, but it has been slow-going. I’m learning some new tools that will accelerate things in the future.

Back at University, I was very unhappy. I was under the impression that I would be moving from a music desert to a music mecca. I could not have been more mistaken.

I went to High School listening to WCMS, 99.9FM (Almost Perfect Radio). Their original jingle was that they were the Western, Country Music Station.

There was no country station at University. It was almost like it was a leftest enclave. I listened to many different radio stations, mostly I listened to albums and those new fangled things, CDs.

One day, I heard a haunting love song come over the airwaves. It was the first song I had heard on American radio in a foreign language, German. There was even a line in it regarding Captain Kirk… I loved that song.

Nobody knew what she was singing, but it was had an energy that was fun and powerful.

Later, they released the same song in English.

For the last couple of weeks, I’ve been working with a great group of people at the CourtListener site. They are one of a number of projects that are supported by the Free Law Project.

All of this started because I asked for help uploading a document I had paid for. The project lead helped and asked for an error report. I gave it and in the midst of that asked, “How do you do X?” His reply was geek to geek. “That is a feature people have been asking for. Feel free to write it.”

I did.

Since then, I’ve been contributing little bits and pieces, but that is not the point of this article…

I asked for a simple link I could press to get proper citations. Citations that I can use here. They didn’t have one. Worse, they explained to me how I’m wrong…

It took me a week of being told wrong before somebody actually bothered to say what I was doing wrong. Part of that is because they have their own use cases, and we do not fit into their world view.

Most of the time, what I get is a short screenshot with the YouTuber, maybe giving me a little more context.

If I am a bit luckier, I might get something like this:

From this, I need or want to find the actual case. That should be pretty easy, right? Not so much.

The header on this document indicates that it came from PACER. That is not enough to actually locate this particular document.

To locate this document, you have to find it. The case number, 3:23-cv-00209-SPM, is not unique. I’m not sure what the leading three means. “23” means that this case was filed in 2023. “cv” means that it is a civil case and not a criminal case. It is case “00209” in this court. “SPM” are the initials of the judge hearing the case.

There is not enough information to find the actual case. For that, you need to the actual court, which is under the header. “In the United States District Court for The Southern District of Illinois.” That is a mouth full. You need to look that up in “Table T9 and T12” WTF? Yeah, that is what I said.

The answer is that “Tables” are published in The BlueBook. It is one of those textbooks that every lawyer has. It is also expensive as heck, and the online version is only available as a subscription.

Within those tables, you find that “Southern District” is abbreviated “S.D.” and that “Illinois” is abbreviated as “Ill.”

Thus, you are looking for case 23-cv-00209 in S.D. Ill. in 2023.

Unfortunately, that isn’t a very useful citation. Nobody remembers numbers like that.

If you look that case up, you will find a more formal citation Barnett v. Raoul, 3:23-cv-00209, (S.D. Ill.).

This is a bad citation. It looks good, but it is not. It is not a good citation because legal people don’t cite to cases. Instead, they cite to documents within a case.

A more correct citation to the document I show above would be the following:

Order Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 5, Barnett v. Raoul, No. 23-cv-00209 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2023), ECF No. 99

And that would tell a lawyer type person exactly where to find that document. For you, I link to it. There is no reason to make you do the search.

But let’s say you aren’t trying to reference a document from a pending or undecided case, but instead wanted a document from a decided case.

First, lawyer type people don’t really seem to care about the documents filed, they care about the final decision. This is the “Opinion” or “Order” or both.

These are either published or unpublished. If they are published, they are published in a “reporter”. Each reporter has a unique name and a unique abbreviation.

In the lawyering world (sort of like the wizarding world but not nearly as much fun to visit) they might say something like “410 U.S. 113” or, if they are researching from a different source, “98 S. Ct. 705” or even “35 L. Ed. 2d 147”. These all mean the same thing. Roe v. Wade

“U.S.”, “S. Ct.” and “L. Ed. 2d” are reporters. The leading numbers indicate the volume, and the trailing number is the page number which starts the decision.

A citation into this opinion would look something like:

To do that citation, I had to find an actual PDF of the opinion from one of the reporters to have good page numbers. Often there are text versions of the opinion with the page numbers stripped off or, worse, with the page numbers not matching the citation. In other words, you might click on 410 U.S. 113 and the site you are visiting my take you to the 98 S.Ct. 705 version. The only differences being the page numbers. And since the reporters can use different font choices, the page numbers might not match with a constant offset.

What all of this means is that I’m working with the people that truly care about doing this correctly. I’ve got a couple of subject-matter experts working with me to figure out the best way to automate the citation process to give the best results.

Meanwhile, I’m trying to figure out if our readers would prefer to see: Order Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, 23-1825, (7th Cir. May 04, 2023) ECF No. 9 OR Order Barnett v. Raoul (7th Cir.)?

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.

Eight children, security guard killed in Serbia school shooting

Eight children and a security guard killed as a student uses two guns and two petrol bombs in preplanned school attack.

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

Add your comments down below, thank you!

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:

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:

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”.

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 States — 16 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

I’ve been listening for songs with a connection to firearms. I’ve noticed that there are far too many songs that imply that somebody is going to get shot for disrespecting somebody else.