In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma a District judge has ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional. If you read A strike against the GCA of 1968 as amended – UPDATED you can read all of § 922(g).

In CR-22-00328-PRW United States of America v. Jared Michael Harrison the district court granted Harrison’s motion to dismiss his indictment.

On May 20, 2022, Harrison was pulled over by an officer of the Lawton Police Department for failing to stop at a red light. When Harrison rolled down his window to speak to the officer, the officer smelled marijuana and questioned Harrison about the source of the smell. Harrison told the officer that he was on his way to work at a medical marijuana dispensary, but that he did not have a state-issued medical-marijuana card.

Harrison is also “known to law enforcement”. At the time of his arrest he was on probation from Texas for aggravated assault.

Because he was wearing an ankle monitor, the cops search the car, found marijuana and “loaded revolver on the driver’s side floorboard”.

The cops arrested him for the pot. About 2 months later a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Harrison of being in possession of a firearm “with the knowledge that he was an unlawful user of marijuana”.

This indictment came post Bruen which means that any good lawyer facing a weapons charge is going to be looking at the second amendment as a defense.

The defense through “unconstitutionally vague”, “violation of Due Process”, and infringement of his right to possess a firearm, contrary to the guarantee of the second amendment.

The argument of the government was that the second amendment doesn’t apply to Harrison because he is not “a law-abiding citizen” and is “unvirtuous”.

When we look at these cases, we need to pay attention to the how of the government’s argument on why they should be allowed to infringe. For years it was “you aren’t part of the militia, the second amendment doesn’t apply to you.” After Heller it was means-end balancing which said that while the law was infringing, the law was narrowly tailored and in support of a good goal.

Post Bruen the government has been arguing that limiting locations isn’t an actual infringement, that certain weapons are to dangerous to allow the people to possess, that requiring “good moral character” is not an infringement.

In defense of §922(g) they are now arguing that they don’t have to follow Bruen and defend the law on the basis of Text, History and Tradition because this class of person is not part of “The People” because they are not virtuous.

If this argument were to prevail, you can bet that we will see more and more laws passed requiring people to prove they are virtuous and of the different levels of the government passing laws defining actions, traits, or opinions as proof that someone is “unvirtuous”. All of which is bad.

Oh, interesting side note, the GCA of 1968 prohibited a prohibited person from receiving a firearm. In other words, an FFL couldn’t sell to a prohibited person nor could you transfer a firearm to somebody that you knew to be a prohibited person. If that person already possessed firearms, they could continue to possess those firearms.

It was only when § 922(g) was amended in 1986 was the GCA changed to prohibit the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.

It is pretty clear from this sort of verbiage that in 1968 congress knew that trying to ban somebody from possessing a firearm would be found unconstitutional. Instead they used the interstate commerce clause to justify banning the transfer of firearms to a prohibited person.

On this point, the United States points to Bruen’s description of the plaintiffs in that case as “ordinary, law-abiding, and adult citizens.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2134. But that description can’t be read as breaking new ground with respect to who make up “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. First, Bruen noted that it was undisputed that the plaintiffs in that case were part of the people protected by the Second Amendment, so at best, the United States is relying on dicta. But even so, the United States is reading too much into the dicta because immediately after describing the plaintiffs, the Bruen Court cited Heller’s holding that “the people” includes “all members of the political community,” not just “an unspecified subset.” Id. (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 580). Thus, this reference in dicta to “law-abiding citizens” cannot possibly be read as overturning the very holding upon which it relies. See Denezpi v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1838, 1847–48 (2022) (explaining that stray statements “[r]ead in isolation …. cannot overcome the holdings of our cases, not to mention the text of the Clause”).

This footnote (20) in the opinion is devastating to the gun grabbers normal attack vectors. Historically the gun grabbers have latched onto stray language within an opinion and made that the linchpin of their method of attacking.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
— United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 – Supreme Court 1939

In this paragraph the court states that the short barreled shotgun had no reasonable relationship to a “well regulated militia”. The gun grabbers used that “stray language” to argue, successfully, that the court actually meant that the entire second amendment only applied to a well regulated militia.

The gun grabbers still make this argument, IIRC, The Hill had an article claiming that the supreme court ignored those three words, “well regulated militia” when they gave their Bruen decision.

This opinion talks about how the first, fourth, and fifth amendment all apply to “the people” and not to just those that are law-abiding.

Prosecutor: Didn’t you kill your wife?
Defendant, on the stand: I take the fifth.
Prosecutor: You are not law-abiding, the fifth doesn’t apply to you!

In this particular case, it feels like the government hung their entire argument on flipping the tables and making Harrison outside of the class of people covered by the second amendment. Because this was their argument and because there really isn’t any historical tradition of banning the possession of firearms by people that were unvirtuous, the government failed as soon as this district court said “the people means all the people.”

Historically we know that drunkards and ne’er do wells were often armed.

The government did give seven different laws that they felt were representative of §922(g)(3). One from 1655 (misses target date by 136 years), and six from 1868-1899, which misses in the other direction by 70 to 100 years. And the Supreme Court specifically stated that laws from the postantiballum time frame could only be used to affirm restrictions from the 1790 period.

Where the seven laws the United States identifies took a scalpel to the right of armed self-defense—narrowly carving out exceptions but leaving most of the right in place—§ 922(g)(3) takes a sledgehammer to the right. Recall that § 922(g)(3) imposes the most severe burden possible: a total prohibition on possessing any firearm, in any place, for any use, in any circumstance—regardless of whether the person is actually intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance. It is a complete deprivation of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense, turning entirely on the fact that an individual is a user of marijuana. Section 922(g)(3)’s “burden on the right of armed self-defense” is thus not “comparable” to the seven historical intoxication laws.

There are so many more great quotes in this opinion, it is worth reading just for the chuckles.

Paraphrase: When the government was asked if the congress could make mowing your lawn a felony and then make all of the new felons prohibited persons, the government responded “yes” Why? Because courts must defer to a legislature’s judgements about what is and is not a felony…

…It’s as if Bruen’s command regarding the inappropriateness of such deference to legislative judgments has been lost in translation. In a sense, one must applaud the United States for its steadfast commitment to its legal position. But “giv[ing] legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label” is inconsistent with the entire point of constitutionalizing a fundamental right in the first place: to restrain a legislature’s ability to infringe that right through legislation. What would remain of the Second Amendment if the Court were to accept the United States’ view that a legislature could prohibit the exercise of the right it protects simply by declaring anything or everything a felony? Nothing. Maybe that is what the federal government desires, but it is hardly what the Constitution requires.

The government is going to have to decide if they want to appeal this case. Right now this is just a district court’s opinion. It has no official sway in other cases. Other courts in the Tenth Circuit might quote this judge in the future but it does not have the same gravatas as if a Circuit Court had issued the opinion.

The government might just take the loss and move on. It looks like Harrison is going to be jammed up for a bunch of other reasons even without the gun charge.

If the government does decide to appeal, we might find another Circuit court ruling that parts of §922(g) is unconstitutional.

If enough of §922(g) is found unconstitutional this might be the death neal of “background checks.” Or maybe just 4473s. You want to buy a firearm? Hand your official ID over to the FFL, they call it in and ask “Are they prohibited?” No record keeping no muss, no fuss.

We live in exciting times.

B.L.U.F. — Parts of the GCA of 1964 have been found unconstitutional

7. It shall be unlawful for any person—
   1. who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
   2. who is a fugitive from justice;
   3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
   4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
   5. who, being an alien—
      1. is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
      2. except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
   6. who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
   7. who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
   8. who is subject to a court order that—
      1. was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
      2. restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
      3. 1. includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
         2. by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
   9. who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

   to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

This is where the questions on the 4473 come from. This is part of 18 U.S. Code § 922 – Unlawful acts.

Zackey Rahimi is not a good person. He seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work from his pre-sentencing report. Regardless, he challenged his conviction as a prohibited person in possession of a firearm on constitutional grounds.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas.1 On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned
to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.

Officers in the Arlington Police Department identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and obtained a warrant to search his home. Officers executed the warrant and found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi admitted that he possessed the firearms. He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, by a Texas state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. The protective order restrained him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm.

A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order.

Rahimi claimed that 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional. The district court disagreed and found him guilty. Rahimi then appealed and the fifth circuit upheld his conviction.

After Bruen the fifth circuit court withdrew its opinion and ordered this case back with supplemental briefings and to expedite the case for oral arguments.

In the original appeal the government argued that United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3rd 203 (5th Cir. 2001) had already argued the constitutionality of 922(g)(8). In 2001 the fifth circuit applied a means-end scrutiny (not documented) and determined that 922(g)(8) was narrowly tailored to the goal of minimizing the threat of lawless violence.

Because the law was “narrowly tailored” and had an acceptable goal, the circuit court “balanced” Emerson’s rights away.

Bruen says that means-end is unacceptable when analyzing second amendment cases.

On February 2nd, 2023 the Fifth Circuit court of appeals issued this opinion on United States of America v. Zackey Rahimi

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

This is another brick. The wall of gun control laws is being dismantled. Mr. Gun Control, tear down the wall!

And he isn’t going to be given a choice.

So far, the biggest loss we’ve suffered is in the second circuit where they have issued saysstays against injunctions against the CCIA.

A huge difference from even a few years ago.

Update: Changed it from GCA of 1964 to GCA of 1968

21-11001 5th Cir Court of Appeals, USA v Rahimi

Last week we asked if anybody wanted a photo heavy article on a couple of different lever actions.

You asked and I’m going to provide. First up is the Winchester ’94. We’ll be showing the differences between pre and post ’64 models.

For those that don’t know, In 1964 Winchester changed the design of the ’94. It went to a lower cost methodology. I don’t know all the ins and outs (yet) but the one that bit me is the “elevator” or “lifter”. This is the part of a lever action rifle that lifts the cartridge from the magazine tube level up to the chamber level and lets the round be chambered.

On the post ’64 model this is made from stamped sheet metal. On the pre ’64 model, it is a machined part. I’ve had zero issues with my pre ’64 Winchester ’94s. My one post ’64 gave me lots of feed issues. I believe I’ve Bubba’d that lifter back into spec. as it seems to be working.

The R92 will likely come third. I have a Marlin 3082 (Model 30 with fancies) and a Marlin 1894. Since somebody asked about the 1894, it is likely that I’ll do that.

It seems that Hagar stirred the pot but good. Last I looked there were over 25 comments on her article. She’s started her next article. I think you all will like it.

The most interesting thing I’ve read or heard regarding the Stabilizing Brace final rule put out by the ATF is the lawsuits filed. Many are being filed in Texas which is part of the fifth circuit court. A decidedly level headed circuit court, likely to follow Bruen

I’ll be keeping an eye on that case.

More stuff is happening with O.F.F. over in Oregon. Measure 114 is being challenged and of course the media is miss representing the cases. We might get an update done soon.

The CCIA in New York State has an injunction against it which is currently held by the second circuit court. There will be a hearing on the appeal in March. We are waiting for the court to release their reasoning for their stay as “suggested” by the Supreme Court.

The state of New Jersey created the “Kill Carry” bill. The first district court to hear the case issued a injunctions against the law when it showed up in her court. The state went judge shopping. Got their case in front of a different judge. This judge then passed the case to the original judge with a comment of the yeah, what she said.

State of Gun Free Zone.

When we went to “pay to comment” we lost a few readers. The numbers are going back up.

Let us know down below how we can make GFZ better for you. In the meantime, keep up the good fight

B.L.U.F. Train of thought comes off the rails in regards to “don’t call people names”

Having read “But HE said it first!” I had a long hard think on it. I do not like the way Hagar said some of the things she said but I do understand where she is coming from.

For years I was told to take the high road. If they go low, we side step and take the high road. Over the years this came to mean getting kicked in the balls over and over again. Playing by the rules when they were cheating just didn’t work.

One time I treated a useful idiot who wanted “common sense gun control” after Sandy Hook exactly as she treated me. I said she wanted to kill children because she would let teachers carry in schools. I was told to back off. That I made her feel bad. That everybody knew she didn’t want to kill children. She had devoted her life to children.

This is the problem. We aren’t allowed to strike back.

Earlier J.Kb. posted Female privilege won her a stupid prize. In the video a young woman is attacking a larger male. She is swatting at him. Hitting at him. It seems pretty obvious that she wanted to lay hands on him.

He attempted desculation. He backed away. He tried using his voice to get her to stop.

She finally connected. He responded, picked her up and tossed her on the ground.

She got up, and started back at him and he just shoved her backwards and moved forward in an ok fighters pose. His fist were clenched.

Then, and only then did the people around step in.

You aren’t allowed to strike back. If you do, you are the bad one.

If you take it day after day, week after week and finally snap and strike back, verbally or physically, you are the evil one. You are the bad one. You should have just sucked it up.

The left learned that no matter what they said, nobody would do to them what they did to us.

Look at January 6th. For a year we had watched the riots around the country. Week after week we saw the left attacking federal buildings, marching in “black blocks”, attacking anybody that stood up to them.

We cheered on those few occasions when the leftist thugs ran into somebody that was willing to fight back. When people fought back they won.

The media painted those that stood up for themselves as extremist. Right wing extremist. The slapped a label on us and started the name calling. It was generic name calling. It worked.

When “Patriot Prayer” had a permitted event out there in leftist land, the cops showed up. They didn’t let anybody into the event space with anything remotely like a weapon. The leftist thugs gathered outside the police lines. Fully armed. When the thugs attacked the police retrieved.

The people at the event were attacked and were unarmed, until they took the weapons from the thugs attacking them.

Over the last 5 years we have all learned to fight back. Most of us do it verbally. We do it in our articles here at GunFreeZone. We do it in our interactions with others.

This is a safe place, for us. When I write something here, I hope people will read and learn. I hope that some times our articles make it out into the wild and it brings in a few more readers.

But this is my safe space.

As a representative of Miguel’s creation, I attempt to keep the name calling to a minimum.

If Hagar doesn’t feel “safe” is that because she isn’t safe? I don’t think so. I think it is because she equates the nasty name calling that happens to her to be extend here.

Bluntly, if somebody was to start calling any of our writers or commenters derogatory names, they would lose the privilege of posting.

If you want to say that my opinion is moronic, go for it. If you want to debate with me, I’ll have that debate.

I’ve taken more than a couple of comments from our readers and responded with full articles. Because they had a point.

Having babbled for to long, I’ll leave you with this:

Try not to call individuals derogatory names. There is enough stupid stuff our enemies do that you can point it out all you want.

Is this a rule? Nope. You get to say what you want within the rule posted. “Don’t be a dick”

Thank you for being with us.

On Monday a screenshot of a message came across my feed.

According to a source within the Memphis PD, the 5 charged officers weren’t hired through the usual structured PD hiring process. City leaders felt the existing process was too strict and kept certain people from getting jobs at the department. City leaders began their own hiring process and then pushed new hires into the agency, bypassing the testing procedures in place at the department. You can read between the lines what that all means.

All 5 of the charged officers were hired by the City, and didn’t go through the rigorous PD testing process. This is what quota hiring looks like. Lawsuits and dead innocents. The city should pay the lawsuits instead of the Police department. This Murder wasn’t created by old school policing or by “white supremacy”. This murder was directly facilitated by liberal policy
— Chief of Police, Karan Parmar via linkedin post

Given that this was just a screen shot it wasn’t trustworthy. Not enough to talk about.

Today an article from the New York Post there was confirmation.

At least two out of of five Memphis police officers charged with murder in the fatal beatdown of Tyre Nichols joined the force after the department relaxed its hiring requirements.

Not quite the same as what Parmar posted, but interesting.

Recruits no longer needed an associate’s degree or 54 college credit hours to join the force, and could get by with five years of work experience, Action 5 reported.

Loosening the required qualifications however means that the department is ultimately getting “less desirable” job candidates, Mike Alcazar, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired NYPD detective, told The Post.

“They’re desperate. They want police officers,” Alcazar said. “They’re going through it, they check off some boxes, saying, ‘Ok, they’re good enough, get them on.”
— Memphis cops charged in Tyre Nichols murder hired after PD relaxed job requirements

The Memphis police are down more than 500 men and is offering $15,000 signing bonuses. It does sound like a DEI hire.

Add to this a newly signed bill (unverified by me) in California that say that illegal aliens are now able to get jobs as law enforcement officers.

As more and more substandard people are hired as law enforcement the more the people that actually care and are good are likely to leave the job.

One of the issues with minimum wages that isn’t talked about is that when you raise the rate of the lowest, you have to raise the rate of those above them. I know a couple of people that quit when they found out the new person just hired that reported to them was making more than they were.

If you have some section lead that has been struggling for years to work their way up from $7.50/hr and is now making $14.50/hr and suddenly the guy they just hired to mop floors is making $15/hour his $0.50 raise doesn’t feel all that good.

What was old is new again is a phrase I’ve heard from time to time, be it bell bottom jeans or a dozen other fashion styles. Heinlein mentioned in one story, which I have not verified, that hemlines have a correlation to solar activity.

Music goes in cycles as well. I can’t tell you how tired I am of hearing The Wellerman because it seems that every person with a YouTube account that sings has put up their attempt.

Music often has lascivious lyrics. Things that make you go “Say what?” At University I watched Footloose in the theater multiple times. I enjoyed the music greatly. I never understood why her father was upset about her dancing to Dancing in the Streets. Years later I found out it was actually Dancing in the Sheets oh my.

Back before my time there were songs of the same level of suggestion, often a bit more. Go listen to Cole Porters Some Like It Hot.

If you thought the left had a fit over It’s Cold Outside imagine what would happen over this song:

or this one:

Here’s one from them trolling the church:

To finish out our Limelighters retrospect, their take in 1961 of “Woke Culture”.

And the original:

It is difficult to fight the government. There are often huge hurdles to overcome. When the system is working as designed, there are reasonable paths for movement toward correcting wrongs done by our government.

Taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court and arguing it will cost several million dollars. The net says that just getting a DC Lawyer to file for certiorari will run $100,000 to $250,000. That’s the cheap part.

For decades we lacked the tools to fight gun control laws. The system was weighed against us. If there was a state with an egregious gun control law it was unlikely to have courts that were far out of line with that state’s ideals. You find more leftist judges in leftist states.

FOr years the Ninth Circus Court was known for refusing to give standing to anybody regarding Second Amendment claims. The same was true in the Second Circuit Court and a few others. In addition there were many cases where when the state lost they would make a decision not to appeal in order to keep the case out of the hands of the Supreme Court.

It was better to take a lose in regards to one individual than to potentially lose everything.

We saw this in NYSR&PA v. New York City when the city and state jumped through flaming hoops in order to get the case mooted before SCOTUS could rule. Something about in the days before SCOTUS granted certiorari the city and state were arguing that if their regulation was overturned people would die and that it was absolutely necessary to keep the rule in place to save lives.

When SCOTUS granted certiorari NYC changed their rule and claimed the case was moot. NYS then got a law passed that said that the rule could not be reintroduced by NYC. This didn’t mean that the state couldn’t reintroduce the rule as law, just that NC couldn’t.

Monday the rule saved lives. Tuesday it wasn’t really necessary and so it is struck and the state is forbiddening the city from every implementing that rule again.

Before Heller it was all about “you aren’t a part of the militia, no standing” after Heller it became Miller allows some gun rights to be infringed based on type of weapon.

Bruen brought us a huge win. It gave us a tool to wield against overreaching government tyrants.

When Illinois filed their latest infringements they expected a little push back. What they got instead was an avalanche of suits filed against them.

Most of these cases are not destined for the Supreme Court. They will either be folded into other similar cases as they move up the system or the plaintiffs(Good guys) will drop out of the fight once it gets to expensive.

With Bruen in their arsenal, even a week lawyer can make a good claim against many aspects of the Illinois gun controll bills.

The state has to defend against them all, strenuously. If the gun rights team gets even one win at the district or state lower court, it gives more weight to other cases challenging the law. When you read Suddaby quoting Sinatra Jr quoting Suddaby you can see how this all works.

Of course the gun rights infringers have the same tired arguments.

Gun-rights groups refused to negotiate the measure when it was being discussed in subject matter hearings at the Illinois statehouse late last year and earlier this month.

Why would anybody be negotiating at this point with gun rights infringers?

After a multi day argument in social media my opinion got tired and lashed out “Well what law would you propose to fix the problem!!!?” he yelled in text. I quoted the Second back to him. He shut up.

Walk into a business and head over to HR. Start negotiating for your salary. They will show you to the door. They didn’t want to hire you. They don’t want you. There is nothing to negotiate.

Their negotiation is always “We are going to take all of this from you. If you promise to be quiet we won’t take as much.” Nope. I don’t agree to the deal.

‘Game on’ as attorneys challenge Illinois’ gun ban with more lawsuits expected

(The Center Square) – The first lawsuits have been filed against the state of Illinois’ new ban on certain guns the legislature deems assault weapons and more lawsuits are expected.