You know what to do-

18 USC §922(g) is the prohibited person section of US federal law. It has 9 different sections, each one addressing one class of people to be denied their rights.

The Constitution says that “The People” is all of the people. The question being asked again and again is who belongs to the class “The People”.

It is clear that a US Citizen is part of “The People”. That implies to me that felons are also part of “The People”.

Do you lose your citizenship if you are wanted by the law? Nope.

Do you lose your citizenship if you partake in the “devil’s lettuce?” Nope.

Do you lose your citizenship if you have ever been in a mental institution? Nope.

Do you lose your citizenship if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military? Nope.

You lose your citizenship when you renounce it.

If you are imprisoned, you lose access to many things. They don’t allow drugs, weapons and many other things. Doesn’t mean those things aren’t getting into prisons, it just means it is against the rules and a prisoner can be punished if they are found breaking those rules.

In addition, we have the question of being an alien. Are the legal aliens living here part of “The People”? How about illegal aliens? Are they?

Originally, §922(g) was about transferring firearms. Now it is about both transferring and possessing.

The government has defined classes of people that they feel should be excluded from “The People”. The short is that they have said that these classes of people are not “virtuous”.

In Soviet Russia they had mental asylums. People were committed if they were mentally unstable. Unfortunately this turned into a catch all for “enemy of the state.” Since the state was wonderful, anybody that spoke out against the state must be crazy. If they were crazy the were committed. This made society “safer”.

If the government can define what is and is not a virtuous person and also define “The People” as only those that are law abiding and virtuous, they can remove any right at will. They just exclude you from “The People” and your rights evaporate.

We now have multiple cases challenging parts of §922(g). In OK, tenth circuit, a district court has ruled §922(g)(3), drug user, as unconstitutional. The fifth circuit court has ruled that §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. A district judge in the western district of KY, sixth circuit, has found §922(g)(8) unconstitutional.

We need to wait to see if the state appeals these cases. It would not surprise me if Texas does appeal. If they appeal and it gets to the Supreme Court it could be a quick case where TX puts in a lackluster performance and parts of §922(g) go away across the entire country.

Other states which are anti-gun might very well not appeal losses at the district or circuit levels in order to keep the case from getting to the Supreme Court.

Over in California, Judge Benitez just dropped the hammer on the state in a number of cases, 3 IIRC.

The State Defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a (statewide prohibition on a firearm with listed features) (statewide prohibition of an ammunition feeding device or a limit on the amount of ammunition) (statewide background check for buying ammunition). The brief shall be limited to 5 pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list.

I tried to find what “filing of the law list”, regardless, the worse it could be is 30 days from now. The best it could be is just a few days because Benitez ordered all briefings be provided to him with in a short period of time once the ninth circuit court kicked these cases back to him.

At the same time we have a number of states attempting to ban assault weapons and magazines because the are exceptionally deadly/dangerous. We have a bunch of states that are attempting to make their entire state a sensitive place via a patchwork of explicit places that are listed as sensitive.

In all cases that are being tracked by me, we are winning. Not as fast as I would like, but we are winning.

B.L.U.F. Some of the media understands that the NYS CCIA is an overreach that accomplishes nothing.

One of the great stupidities of New York’s current gun-law debate is that existing laws merely required a couple of tweaks for them to prove effective — nowhere more so than in the need for a license-to-carry rule based on objective criteria rather than bias and favoritism.

There are a number of pundits talking about knee-jerk responses by the different states. The states that created a spaghetti bowl of new laws to throw at the wall. The states that created “Kill carry” bills which make it easier to get a CCW but which makes it almost impossible to actually carry anywhere.

The responses are starting to fall into a few categories:

• Sensitive Places
• Good Moral Character
• Prove you are a responsible law abiding citizen
• Expanded training that isn’t available
• Costs increases.
• Attempting to flip who has to prove history and tradition
• That particular thing isn’t covered under the second amendment because it isn’t an “arm” or it is “exceptionally dangerous”

Nobody wants to hear it in the era of “decarceration” and “depolicing,” but one of the major problems facing crime-ridden Democrat-run cities is that many firearms offenses — short of murder — now go largely unpunished: In Philadelphia, 61% of gun cases are dismissed without charges or trial, up from less than 30% as recently as 2016.

Yep, right on target there. If you put the bad guys in jail, they aren’t going to be doing bad things to us.

Of the 4,456 gun arrests NYPD made in 2021, there was at last count one (not a typo!) conviction at trial and far more dismissals (983) than plea deals (698). Statistically speaking, the most likely thing to happen after an arrest for illegally carrying a gun in New York is … nothing.

Imagine that, nearly 4.5 thousand people were arrested in NYC for violating some part of their gun laws in 2021 (pre Bruen) yet only one was taken to trial and convicted.

It is highly likely that the poor saps that did end up being punished after a gun arrest were mostly law abiding, people that caught up by the police because ???.

It reminds me of the stories of construction workers being stopped and frisked. Their pocket knives were found. The cops then did a “flick test” where they attempted to open the knife one handed. If they were able to do so, they worker was jacked up on a weapons violation.

The problem with New York City’s license-to-carry law was never that it was too strict — it was that it was arbitrary and favored the connected. Celebrities such as Steven Seagal and Joan Rivers were issued licenses, but ordinary New Yorkers long found it nearly impossible to get one. This wasn’t a matter of responsible gun ownership — asked in 2003 about the concealed-carry permit he had secured during his mayoral candidacy four decades earlier, William F. Buckley Jr. replied: “I have my pistol permit in my wallet, and no one knows where the gun is.”

The problem with New York City’s license-to-carry law was never that it was too strict — it was that it was arbitrary and favored the connected. Celebrities such as Steven Seagal and Joan Rivers were issued licenses, but ordinary New Yorkers long found it nearly impossible to get one. This wasn’t a matter of responsible gun ownership — asked in 2003 about the concealed-carry permit he had secured during his mayoral candidacy four decades earlier, William F. Buckley Jr. replied: “I have my pistol permit in my wallet, and no one knows where the gun is.”

And here is our words echoed back to us:

The license-holders are not the problem. The criminals are.

A new solution for New York’s gun problems: Enforcement and punishment

As legislators reconsider New York’s concealed weapons laws, more thought should be given to both preventing crime and issuing licenses equitably.

 

Reading media reports is driving me crazy. We’ve got democrats introducing new gun control everyday. We’ve got bad guys winning 2A cases.

We’ve got inflation going through the roof and our government taking victory laps because it isn’t as bad as it was last month.

Nothing but clowns and jokers everywhere you look in DC.

And as recorded:

B.L.A.B. Bottom Line At Bottom

In 1967 a bad dude was arrested in connection to a rape and kidnapping. He was also charged with robbery where he matched the description.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of kidnapping, Count I; and Rape, Count II; and sentenced to serve from twenty to thirty years on each count, to run concurrently. From the judgment and sentence of the court he appeals. Appellant, hereinafter called defendant, was in another information charged with the crime of robbery. After arraignment in the instant case, on motion of the county attorney, the trial on the robbery case was consolidated with the instant case, but thereafter one day prior to the trial of this case separate trials were granted. Defendant was tried and convicted on the robbery charge, from which he is also appealing in the companion case…

Here is the court’s description of the case:

The facts, as they relate to the defense as charged under Counts I and II in the instant case are as follows: On March 3, 1963, the complaining witness a girl eighteen years of age had been working in the concession stand at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Phoenix, and had taken the bus to 7th Street and Marlette. After getting off the bus, she had started to walk toward her home. She observed a car, which afterwards proved to be defendant’s, which had been parked behind the ballet school on Marlette. The car pulled out of the lot, and came so close to her that she had to jump back to prevent being hit. It then parked across from some apartments in the same block. Defendant then left his car, walked toward her, and grabbed her. He told her not to scream, that he would not hurt her. He held her hands behind her back, put a hand over her mouth, and pulled her toward the car. He put her in the back seat, tied her hands and feet, and put a sharp thing to her neck and said to her “Feel this.” She stated it all happened so suddenly that she did not have time to do anything. Defendant was unknown to the complaining witness. She had not seen him before, and he was not related to her in any way.

He then drove the car for about twenty minutes, during which time complaining witness was lying in the back seat crying. When defendant stopped the car, he came to the back seat, and untied her hands and feet. He told her to pull off her clothes. She said “no,” whereupon he started to remove them. She tried to push away from him, but he proceeded to remove her clothing. And, then, after one unsuccessful attempt, made a successful sexual penetration, while she pushed with her hands and was screaming. She testified:
*22 “I was pushing against him with my hands. I kept screaming, I was trying to get away but he was a lot stronger than I was, and I couldn’t do anything.”

He then drove her to 12th Street and Rose Lane, during which time she dressed. She ran home, and told her family, who called the police. Her sister testified that the complaining witness came home that morning crying and looking as if she had been in a fight. On March 13, 1963, defendant was apprehended by the police. The officers who picked him up both testified that he was put into the “line-up” and was identified by complaining witness. Thereafter he confessed that he had forced complaining witness into his car, drove away with her, and raped her. After these statements he signed a statement, partly typed and partly in his own handwriting, which was substantially to the same effect as the testimony of the officers. Defendant offered no evidence in his defense at the trial of his case.

So there you have it. Open and shut case. Dude stalked this girl, grabbed her off the street, forced her into his car, threatened her with a knife, then raped her. He then drove off with her and later released her.

When the cops arrested him, he confessed. At his trial he offered no evidence in his defense.

He was guilt, the judge knew it, the jury knew it. He was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years.

At the same time he confessed to the robbery but didn’t sign a written confession. He was found guilty of the robbery as well and sentenced to 20 to 30 years.

The law at work.

This court appointed lawyer, at trial claimed that his client was to ignorant to knew he had rights under the constitution. That he just talked to the cops and then signed his confession. Because he didn’t have his lawyer present, his confession should not be admitted.

The court disagreed and the confession was entered into evidence.

After he was found guilty, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme court.

Defendant contends that admission into evidence of his written confession was error for the reason that he did not have an attorney at the time the statement was made and signed. The police officers Young and Cooley testified to oral statements made to them before the signing of the written confession. Their testimony was substantially the same. They first saw defendant at his home at 2525 West Maricopa on March 13, 1963, when they went there for the purpose of investigating a rape. They took defendant to the police station and placed him in a “line-up” with “four other Mexican males, all approximately the same age and height, build,” and brought in the complaining witness who identified him as the one who had perpetrated the acts against her. Then they immediately interrogated him. They advised him of his rights. They testified that he made the statement of his own free will; and that there were no threats, or use of force and coercion, or promises of immunity; that they had informed him of his legal rights and that any statement he made might be used against him.

Having weighed all of the arguments and evidence, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in the rape case.

Justice is served, a bad dude is in prison for 20-30 years. A raped woman gets to face the animal and help send him to prison.

Unfortunately, this scumbag wasn’t done abusing the court system. He appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. His claim was that since he didn’t have his lawyer present when he gave his confession that it shouldn’t have been admitted into evidence at trial.

The Supreme Court combined his case with others and in 1966 issued their opinion.

Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

Bottom Line At Bottom

This is the famous Miranda v. Arizona case. The Supreme court case that lead to “Miranda Warnings”. This is good case law. Unfortunately it meant that Miranda’s conviction was overturned. He was retried with his confession not being admitted into evidence. He as found guilty again and sentenced to 20-30 years. His robbery conviction was not overturned.

A good outcome in the end, both for Case Law and for society by putting this animal away for decades.

State of Arizona v. Ernest Arthur Miranda, 98 Ariz 18(1965) No. 1394

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 – Supreme Court 1966

B.L.U.F. If the case at hand is an outlier or the people involved are particularly sympathetic, the case law created in the case isn’t going to be very good.

Consider an EMT with a long history of service to his nation and his community. He finds a woman that he likes and starts a relationship with them. After a short(ish) period of time he discovers that his GF is toxic any many many ways so the tells her to go.

He makes every effort to make that separation as painless as possible. Bending over backwards, loaning her a vehicle, all sorts of things.

After months of separation she gets a bug in her ear and goes psycho ex. She goes to the judge and says that our EMT is stalking her. That she is afraid of him because he is one of those right-wing gun nuts. The judge listens to all of this testimony with nobody to stand up for our EMT.

The judge decides to grant a TRO with the right markers on it. Our EMT just became a prohibited person. Shortly thereafter the cops show up at our EMT’s home and tell him he has to hand over his weapons or dispose of them. Lucky for him he has that sort of friend you call when you need a backhoe and “we’ll never speak of this again” sort of friend.

Friend shows up and EMT sells all his firearms to his friend for a token amount.

Our EMT now enters a long legal battle to get his rights back.

Our EMT has cops and people in the community to testify to his virtue. He has proof he was out of town when psycho-ex claims she saw him, he has documentation that he was helping her get on her feet after the broke up. He has everything he needs to prove his innocence once he gets in front of the judge.

This is a “hard case”. Our EMT is exactly the sort of person that we want. He is a good person. Yet that TRO has striped him of his rights. He files a lawsuit against 18 USC § 922(g)(8) saying that it is unconstitutional when evaluated in regards to Bruen. The court agrees and rules that §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional.

And then the reason why this is bad (case) law. Did the judgement happen because our EMT is a good and virtuous person who was abused by the system? Or did it happen because the law is bad.

No matter what the actual reason, no matter how good the opinion, there will be many people that will question if this is “good case law”.

Now let’s consider a different person. We’ve got a guy that was arrested for shooting at people, he has a TRO on him because he beat the stuffing out of his girl friend and baby maker, he has had multiple run ins with law enforcement yet has never been convicted, he is not a felon.

When the cops arrest him they charge him with all the shooting he did. They find he is in possession of a firearm and that he has as TRO against him, so they stack a firearms charge on top of all the rest.

He files a case to have the firearms charge dropped because 18 USC §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional.

The court finds that §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. Nobody things they did this because they had any real sympathy for the guy.

He deserves to spend time behind bars. He is a danger to himself and others and he committed multiple crimes.

That doesn’t change the undisputed fact that he is part of “the people” that are protected by our Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights. The first still applies to him, as does the fourth and fifth. If those rights still apply to him, then so does the much more explicit second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

To quote Clarence Thomas “…Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”. The second amendment is explicit and it issues an unqualified command upon our government.

Hard cases do make bad laws. I don’t like the fact that bad dudes are the center of some of the good 2A opinions that have been coming down.

Not long enough? Ok. I really wanted the quote from Thomas including “…the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”.

Regardless of what you think about the person, we have to judge the law based on the rule of law. Our country uses “common law” as its standard.

We have the law as passed by the people through their representatives. Those laws fit within a hierarchy. The top is our Constitution, as amended, at the bottom are the little rules, regulations, policies of your local government.

What those laws mean, how they are interpreted, is determined by the judicial system. Because we use “common law”, the decision in one court affects all other questions that are related. Since our courts are also exist in a hierarchy, we have the Supreme Court Of The United States at the top and all other inferior courts under them. The higher up the hierarchy the court is, the stronger their opinion becomes in case law.

We need good case law in support of the Second Amendment. This means that bad people are going to make Second Amendment claims in their defence. We can still want those bad people to be convicted, but of the bad things they did. We need the case law that comes out of these cases strengthening the courts interpretation of the Second Amendment.

For those that say that we can just have judges issue TRO’s that prohibit possession of firearms, that is not going to fly, long term. Where in the constitution does it say that a Judge can remove your right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition your government, your right to be secure in your person and papers? It isn’t there.

There are very few situations where your rights can be removed.

We want good Case Law.

I am known for long rambling written communications. I’m old enough that I was taught to present my facts, my argument first, then once those have been accepted, I present my conclusions, based on those facts and arguments.

This was the standard method for many many years.

Unfortunately this leads to “Burying the lead” where you don’t get to the point of a written communication until you have waded through all the gunk you don’t really care about. Or you lose your audience before you get to your primary point.

In order to combat this, we started using “abstracts”. An abstract is suppose to be a condensed statement of what the communication will communicate. These can be a paragraph or they can be a page. The longer they are, the less useful they become.

Back when secretaries were a thing, it wasn’t uncommon for an executive to ask their secretary for an “executive summary”. The person so charged would read the entire thing and then present a condensed statement of the paper. Sometimes as short as a sentence.

Now consider a military situation. You are the commanding officer, a junior officer from intelligence comes running in, out of breath. They start explaining that they have this indicator, that indicator, this observation, that observation. Finally after 15 minutes of explaining all the facts they say “From this I expect the enemy to be attacking from the north east via the river valley,” pauses to look at his watch, “in about 10 minutes”.

Now consider the B.L.U.F. methodology,”Colonel, we have strong indicators that the enemy will be attacking in about 25-30 minutes from the north east via the river valley.” Before launching into how they reached that conclusion. The Col. might just interrupt them to send out an alert, maybe saving lives.

I was introduced to B.L.U.F. when I was doing work for the DoD. It is not my default methodology. In one of our Friday Feedbacks it was mentioned that it would be nice if there was something at the start that would let them know if they actually wanted to wade through my long posts.

The “cool kids” version of B.L.U.F. is “TL;DR” which means “Too Long; Didn’t Read”. I don’t like that style because it assumes that the person is to lazy to actually read something.

I’ve started writing articles for one of my clients. My articles run 1500 to 3000 words. (yeah, that long). All their other contributors submit articles that run around 500 words. They actually have guidelines that say “At least 500 words”. For me, they ask that I either let them break my article across multiple postings or that I do it for them.

I’ve never sent a single tweet. How can I even form a thought when I’m limited to 140 characters?

So you get BLUF now when I remember, which is most of the time.