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

Federal judge grants injunction on Illinois assault weapons ban

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (NEXSTAR) — A federal judge for the Southern District of Illinois issued an injunction Friday afternoon, ruling the assault weapons ban as unenforceable. Judge Steven McGlyn…

Illinois assault weapons ban still in effect after appeals court denies injunction

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against an injunction that would have blocked Illinois’ statewide ‘assault weapons’ ban that was signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

It’s Democrats, Not Republicans, Who Are to Blame for Most Child Gun Deaths

The bottom line is that targeting lawful gun owners will not make a dent in the number of gun homicides among children and teens.

New Mexico police fatally shoot man during investigation at wrong home: reports

A New Mexico man was shot and killed by police who mistakenly knocked on his door to investigate a domestic violence incident, according to reports.

Making, possessing and selling “ghost guns” will likely soon be illegal in Colorado

Ghost guns, which have been linked to several recent high-profile shootings in Colorado, are untraceable because they don’t have serial numbers

Gaetz introduces ‘Abolish the ATF Act’ after ruling against stabilizing braces

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced the “Abolish the ATF Act” on Tuesday following a controversial ruling by the agency that tightens regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces.

State senator wants to ban the carry, sale of certain guns in Virginia

The proposal differs from current law because it would ban a wider range of guns across the state instead of only in certain counties, plus, Virginians wouldn’t be able to carry the guns even…

State asks Oregon Supreme Court to dissolve preliminary injunction blocking gun laws

If granted, the petition would allow the voter-approved magazine ban and completed background check requirement to go into immediate effect.

Did you hear the one about 2 guys who told jokes about the cops? They landed in jail.

Qualified immunity shouldn’t shield police for failing to see what was clear to anyone. Free speech shouldn’t hinge on if cops can take a joke.

List of more than 170 banned guns in Illinois could grow

(The Center Square) – The list of about 170 different semi-automatic guns now banned in Illinois could change with state police granted the authority to update the list “as needed.”

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

B.L.U.F. The Court found that the country has a history and tradition from pre-founding through the modern day of banning dangerous weapons.

The plaintiffs (good guys) have requested a Temporary and Preliminary Injunction to enjoy the state from enforcing the Illinois assault weapon ban as well as the large capacity magazine bans. This is a Second Amendment Challenge

The Court’s statement regarding the factual background

The factual background is whatever the Court decides it is. This is part of the task of a Judge. They decide what the facts of the case are when there is no jury involved. We can learn significant information about the leaning of the Court just from their statement of facts.

Here the Court gives its first glimpse of their bias via the implied facts. “[W]idespread mass shootings nationally” is certainly a loaded phrase. It has the implied fact that there are widespread mass shootings. A fact that is not in evidence.

They move on to give a pretty standard definition of “assault weapon” to include many semi-automatic rifles. It is important to note that this is a ban on possessing an assault weapon as well. The exception being that you have to register the firearm with an “endorsement affidavit”. The same affidavit is required for all LCMs.

The court points out that the new ban is no big deal because the county and city have had bans since 2006 and 2013. No big deal to have the state do it too.

The Question

Is the plaintiff’s right to self-defense threatened by his inability to keep his rifle and pistol and magazines in his home?
Is the “endorsement affidavit” a forced registration, threatening his right to keep and bear arms?

Read More

This has been an interesting week for me. I’m working on a project where I’m being required to do much more frontend work than I normally do. This required me to actually learn Bootstrap’s grid system. It is astonishing how much I learn when I read the code instead of just reading the documentation.

Another part of this was learning about citations and what they mean. This became critical when reading Judge Lindsay Jenkins’ Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the Illinois AWB + LCM ban.

Consider the following: “561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010)”. This is an official reference to McDonald. “561” is volume 561 of U.S. which is “United States Reports”. The same case can be referenced via the “S.Ct.” reporter, which is “Supreme Court Reporter”. And finally, there is “L.Ed.” and “L.Ed.2d) which is the “United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers’ Edition”.

The next number, in our example “742”, is the page number in the printed reference. The “767” after that is the page from which this particular quotation was taken.

Here is the quote of interest to me:

Id. is Latin for “idem” meaning “the same”. In citations, it means the same citation just used. This means I have to find the correct citation. This particular Judge is good with his citations. Whereas most people put the citation immediately after the quotation, this Judge puts them close. He mentions McDonald v. City of Chicago and a line later he gives the citation.

This reference is to pages 899 through 900. Somewhere on those two pages of the printed reporter will be the quote he is citing.

Now I don’t remember anything in Heller, McDonald, or Bruen that said that there was a history or tradition of banning the possession of especially dangerous weapons. The judge quoted them; therefore it must be there. Maybe he pulled it out of context?

The text of the McDonald opinion is available from multiple sources. What isn’t available from most of those sources is a version with the page numbers as used in the cited reporter.

After a bit of looking, I found it at the Library of Congress. I verified it was the correct version because it starts at page 742. Time to find his quote.

Oh shit, there it is:

That is pretty damning language. Why didn’t I know about this?

Oh, here it is, “Stevens, J., dissenting”. Yes, that is Associate Justice Stevens in his dissent to McDonald making this statement. When he quotes back to Heller you have to be cautious because he will often cite back to his own dissent.

In conclusion, this judge decided to justify his acceptance of “historical record” of firearms regulations because the loosing side in McDonald thought, incorrectly, that there were such historical regulations.

On the fun front, a Henry Golden Boy in .22 followed me home. She is very sweet. I need to do a bit more hole punching to get it fully zeroed, that’s just fun.

I hope you all have a great weekend.

Did any of you listen to the Mean Mary music from Tuesday? Should I be looking for different types of music for you’ll?

Matt Driscoll, over at The News Tribune out of Tacoma, Washington, has an opinion.

The reason you are angry about an emergency bill that bans most/all semi-automatic rifles in the state of Washington is because you are selfish.

There you have it, reason and decency prevailed when the legislature passed and the Governor signed into law a bill that strips you of your Second Amendment protected rights. Of course, he has to mislead by saying more than 50 assault-style weapons were banned.

First, the ban lists not just firearms by name, but entire classes of weapons. It doesn’t ban the Colt AR-15, instead it bans AR15, M16, or M4 in all forms — Washington State, 1240-S. In addition, it also bans by feature, some of those features are:

• semi-automatic rifle with an overall length of less than 30 inches
• “Assault weapon” conversion kits, part, or combination of parts
• A semi-automatic center fire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
  • Pistol grip
  • Thumbhole stock
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Forward grip
  • Any sort of muzzle device
  • thread barrel
  • Grenade or flare launcher
  • A barrel shroud unless it on a fudd gun
• A semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds
• And more!!! Including pistols

This bans almost all modern semi-automatic rifles. It seems to be even worse when it comes to pistols. Their definition of a “shroud” would include most slides. If your semi-auto, center fire pistol, takes a detachable magazine, it is an assault weapon under Washington State law.

Matt says this is reason and decency in action.

You are giving up so little for what this law will actually do. Let’s see what Matt thinks this law will do.

Umm, nothing. He doesn’t actually say what he thinks this law will do.

Don’t miss this little gem, that one that every gun infringer puts out there, the “it is just a start”. There’s also little question that reducing gun deaths in America will take more than new regulations… — Matt

You have a politicized cultural gun fetish. I promise you that it is not a gun fetish, at least mine isn’t.

And he closes with standards, he gets to define what “the right to keep and bear arms.” means. Besides, it is just a small price to pay for you to give up some of your rights.

Washington assault weapon ban about more than gun rights

B.L.U.F. Why the Sixth Circuit Court found that the bump stock ban is not constitutional.

This was not a Second Amendment challenge to the rule. Instead, it was an Article I, Section 1 challenge.

The ATF is not a part of the Congress, but is instead a part of the Executive branch. The Executive branch is charged with enforcing laws, not in creating laws.

Given this challenge, Bruen plays no part in the decision except that it indicates that the Supreme Court is serious about Second Amendment protected rights.

The Question

Is the ATF’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C § 922(o)(1) which incorporates 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) Constitutional?

§ 922 is the Gun Control Act. This is where it says it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. — §922(o)(1). That definition of a machinegun is what is at issue:

Is it a machinegun?

Read More

I ran across Mean Mary when looking for Dueling Banjo’s. I wasn’t certain whether I liked her voice or not. Google added her to my rotation, and every once in a while I’d hear a song that I really liked. And then I would look, and it was Mean Mary.

She is a multi instrumentalist. She plays fiddle, banjo, and guitar. That’ve seen so far. She likely plays more.

As I looked through YouTube for more Mean Mary videos, I found a number of “Reacts to” videos. The opera singer was impressed with her voice. The pair of hard rockers were impressed with her playing. The others had similar statements.

And they almost all then went to, “Oh shit, she plays like that! That’s amazing.” when they got to the end.

This one is for all of you that have ever had to give a product pitch

She has a religious bend. This is a devil of song.

She is self-named. When she was younger, she wrote a song titled “Mean Mary from Alabama”. By younger, I mean 6. There is a video of her on some sort of local show at a very young age, being introduced as “Mean Mary St. James”.