Depression is a horrible thing. Large or small it harms. In 22 years ago I lost my mentor, my safety net, my mentor.

He was coming home after having pizza with a friend of ours. This was unusual because the friend had not wanted to go to the regular restaurant. He was driving home on the interstate in a light rain. About a half mile from his exit he came up over the crest of a hill at around 65-70MPH.

In his lane was a stopped car. He swerved into the lane and missed the stopped car but spun out ending up pointing south in the north bound lanes. An Este semi-trailer also doing around 65-70 MPH slammed into his car.

My friend was killed. According to the autopsy it was “instant.”

A car with a doctor pulled over and people rushed to give first aid as there were some four or five vehicles involved. The doctor that was the passenger got out and attended to the living.

In the post accident report it was found that only one person had any alcohol in their bloodstream and at way below legal limits. The doctor who wasn’t driving. He had had a glass of wine with dinner. He had his wife drive because of that glass of wine and the fact that he had had a very long day.

My world ended the next morning when I got an email from my mentor’s father stating that his brother had died the night before. I didn’t think his father had a brother so called to find out. Turns out that his sister had used their fathers email account to send out the message to the mailing list.

I was the person to tell all his friends that it wasn’t his uncle that had died, it was him.

It hurts even now.

For the next 3 or 4 years I lived in depression. I rode my bike on a 100 mile one way commute three times per week. On the way home, alone in my helmet I would look at every overpass and say “Just aim right there and it will all be over. It will be painless.” And each time for dozens of overpasses I would say “not tonight”.

I don’t remember if I was on any medication for depression at that time but if I was, it didn’t seem to help. My depression stayed with me but my will to live exceeded any drive to suicide when my wife-to-be became pregnant. It was something to live for.

But depression remains. It has cost me clients. There is this place where I knew what had to be done but there was always something else I wanted to do. It was hard to talk to people because I knew I was disappointing them.

Earlier this year I decided that yes, I was actually clinically depressed and got help. A little blue pill. Not that one you dirty minded folks. I did not want to do it for fear they would “red flag” me. They didn’t.

It took about two months before I started functioning on a more normal basis.

Suicide is no longer something that is just a step away. It isn’t a consideration.

One of the things I remember is reading how Bob Owens had driven to the end of his street and used his firearm to kill himself. As a voice in the 2A community it hit hard. I vowed that I would never disgrace the 2A with a firearm. It helped.

So I give you this song. It is from the movie and is longer than the version on the TV show.

Suicide is NOT painless. It hurts. It hurts you and it hurts those around you. There are people there to help. Don’t be afraid to reach out if you are hurting. There are people that care for you, even if you can’t see or feel them.

If you or someone you know may be struggling with suicidal thoughts, you can call the U.S. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255) any time day or night, or chat online. Crisis Text Line also provides free, 24/7, confidential support via text message to people in crisis when they dial 741741.

It is important to understand how the courts are structured in the US to understand when and where cases are filed.

There are the state courts along with a bunch of administrative courts, such as bankruptcy court, tax court, and EPA court. The administrative courts are some of the worse because the entire court is paid for by the agency that they are judging for. Just how often do you hear that an IRS hired, paid and compensated judge rules against the IRS?

The state courts lead upwards to the state supreme court. In some situations cases can be moved from the state court system to the federal court system for appeals.

Court cases are expensive. Even if your lawyers work for you it is expensive and most lawyers that do second amendment work are very expensive. Think $1000/hour upwards.

The different organizations need to be selective in how they spend their money. Given that the states have unlimited funds to fight a case it doesn’t cost them anything extra to delay and to have another hearing or require another filing or to have the case go to a different court.

Part of the reason that nobody showed up for the Miller case was that the original lawyers were no longer being paid. Miller, the defendant, had won on appeal and been set free. Nobody expected the government to appeal to the Supreme court. By the time that the case was appealed, the original lawyers were no longer interested and Miller was missing. Many presumed he was dead.

Cases get heard by the Supreme court if they are “important” or if there are multiple differing rulings from the different circuit courts. Thus, if the fifth circuit court hears a Texas case and decides that a restraining order or court order making you a prohibited person is unconstitutional and the ninth circuit court hears a California case and decides that the same law is constitutional then that conflict makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will accept the case.

This goes back to the American system of “Common Law”. Laws are applied in common across all jurisdictions and all people. If something is unconstitutional in Texas it should also be unconstitutional in California as well. Since the circuit courts are considered equal, when there is conflicting opinions at the circuit court level the Supreme Court needs to step in to clarify.

So we can take a look at the cases that are of interest to us right now.

Nothing is happening right now in the first circuit court area. ME and NH are pro-gun, MA, RI and CT are anti-gun. It is a 50/50 guess which way the first circuit will go but I’d bet on following Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

In the second circuit court we have the New York CCIA. This is getting lots of attention and at the district level the state is losing. There are two cases moving forward. One being heard by judge Suddaby and the other by judge Sentra, JR. The second circuit court is as anti-gun as it gets. I fully expect them to rule that the CCI is constitutional on appeal.

In the third circuit court we have lawsuits coming out of NJ. The third is a little more pro-gun than the second but not by much. We’ve not heard decisions out of the district courts yet so we don’t know how the states will react and how the circuit court will respond.

In the forth circuit court we have a lawsuit against the MD AWB and standard magazine capacity bans. The forth is more pro-gun with WV, VA, NC, SC being pro-gun and only MD being anti-gun.

I don’t know of anything happening in the DC circuit court, at this time.

The fifth circuit court is hearing an appeal from the State of Texas defending an anti-gun law. The fifth is likely to side with the district court and rule against Texas. There have been a couple of articles saying that it is likely Texas appealed in order to lose at the circuit court level.

In the sixth circuit court there are some lawsuits coming out of MI.

I don’t know of anything coming in the seventh, eighth, tenth, or eleventh circuit court.

Which leaves that ninth circus court.

The ninth circuit court is famous for having the most decisions overturned by the Supreme court. They get it wrong 80% of the time when a case gets to the Supreme Court. Only the sixth circuit has a higher overturn rate at 82%. The ninth circuit court is also the largest court. It has 16 Democratic appointed and 13 Republican appointed with one pending.

The ninth circuit court had multiple cases remanded to them after the Bruen decision. Instead of just doing the right thing they remanded those cases back down to the district level where they are being heard.

While OR horrible measure 114 is highly likely to be found unconstitutional at the Supreme court level, it is likely to win at the district and circuit level. Since there are already multiple cases in the ninth circuit court it is not a good case for the national organizations to take up.

In addition, the district court hearing the California cases is very much an originalist. He wrote his last decision before Bruen and in it quoted Heller. That opinion was nearly as good as Thomas’.

There is more happening behind the scenes, I’m sure. But for now we have more than a few cases being tracked and mostly wins for us.

From Pistoleer B.Zh comes the following.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Measure 114 injunction suit Dec 2. in good health from behind enemy lines:

11.25.2022

Things are moving quickly in our suit to put Mz 114 on ice.

While there is a long battle ahead of us, the first job is to get an injunction to prevent it from going into effect while we demonstrate that it is clearly unconstitutional.

Though we had expected others, including large national gun rights groups and representatives of the firearms industry, to take legal action, as of today none, to our knowledge, have.

That makes our case even more critical.

Yesterday, Thanksgiving Day, the Federal Court took the unusual step of acting on a Federal holiday and scheduling oral arguments for Dec 2nd.

While this greatly reduces the time our legal team has for preparation, we are hoping it means the court has recognized the need to act quickly. But only time will tell.

OFF wants to assure you that we recognize the gravity of this case. Not only are the livelihoods of thousands at risk, for too many to count, their very lives could be at risk.

The promoters of this measure were more than happy to crush small businesses across the state and send a message to the most vulnerable Oregonians that their safety and privacy are meaningless. They have callously placed security guards and off duty police at risk of being seriously outgunned by criminals.

They continue to lie about the measure and its impacts.

And people who should know better keep giving out ridiculous advice to gun owners who face jail time for simply being in possession of constitutionally protected magazines they have owned for decades.

“To prove a gun owner had possession of higher-capacity magazines prior to Measure 114 going into effect , the owner could take a photo with a timestamp of the magazines, state police Capt. Stephanie Bigman suggested”

This clearly preposterous suggestion will only serve to mislead and endanger people.

Obviously, magazines cannot be identified in a photograph since they all look exactly the same. And it’s laughable to think a court is going to accept a “time stamped” digital photo when, as you can see, they can be so easily altered.

Once again, we want to thank everyone who has been contributing to this fight. The opening salvo comes on Dec 2nd. But no matter how the court rules, this is just the beginning, and your continued support is critical.

Please share this link with your friends and family as we are going to need all the help we can get.

https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPages/DonationPage/tabid/70447/Default.aspx
Thank you. We will not back down.

You can view this email in a browser here:
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/court-date-set

It is unclear if it should be the fight for the Second or if it is the fight against the second. Regardless it is best to know your enemy.

In the best of worlds, what would happen when a new law was being proposed is that the lawmakers would look at the constitution and say “This isn’t constitutional.” and it would die. It doesn’t happen that way. The number of letters I’ve gotten from my Senators and representatives saying “I support the Second and this bill will not infringe on the rights of gun owners.”

The battle is waged between those that know what is happening with the troops of the ignorant sounding off.

“It is my right to possess and carry arms!” is the battle cry but regardless of how true that statement is, the Evil and their minions can’t accept that simple statement.

The attack on the Second falls into different vectors but they are always the same.

1. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to you.
2. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to that.
3. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply there.
4. The Second Amendment is wrong for today so it doesn’t apply to ____.
5. The Second Amendment is not unlimited and must be balanced against societies needs as expressed by the government.

Argument 1 is based on the word “Militia” within the Second. The infringers, correctly, point out that until Heller the Supreme court had never ruled that the Second was an individual right. This is because until the infringers started to claim it was a collective right there was no need for a Supreme Court ruling.

The reason it took so long to be heard by the Court is because nobody had standing for the longest time and if they did have standing the State was often willing to take a loss rather than let a case get to the Supreme Court.

Heller eviscerated the “Collective” right argument. They went through each and every part of the Second and defined and explained what each part meant.

The second applies to YOU. That’s the end of it.

You can see that in the way that the legal landscape changed after Heller.

Argument 2 is that some arm or part of an arm isn’t covered by the Second. Since there were no center fire cartridges in 1791 then the Second doesn’t apply to center fire pistols and rifles. It only applies to muskets. The argument is so ridiculous as to be barely worth noting. Except it is repeated over and over again.

The Supreme court addressed this in Heller by explicitly stating that it does apply to all arms. Not just arms as they existed in 1791.

Argument 3 was already in effect in 2008 but it became the goto argument for the time being. It being that since Heller identified a purpose of the Second, defense of self within the home, that that was the only place were you could exercise your Second Amendment rights.

This was slapped down with McDonald which stated that the right to bear arms extended outside of the home. This turned every state that was “No Issue” into a “May Issue” state. Of course some states, like Hawaii, just never issued any.

This is where things stood after the Heller and McDonald opinions. The states that were reasonable were reasonable. Many states moving from “Shall Issue” to “Constitutional Carry.” Unfortunately the infringing states responded to “May Issue” requirements by making it so difficult to get permission from the government to carry that it was impossible for the average person to get a CCW.

In 2018 New York State Rifle & PIstol Association Inc filed suit against the City of New York. The suit alleged that NYC’s “rule” (go to jail if you violate said rule) that you could not transport your firearm out of the city was unconstitutional. The city and state argued that it was only a small infringement because you could have firearms stored outside of the city that you could transport to outside ranges and competitions. It was only your city firearm that couldn’t leave the city.

In arguments the city claimed that this rule kept the people safe and had to be kept and that the court needed to balance the minor infringement v. the greater good of society. The city won this argument in front of the second circuit court. The rule could stand.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme court. The city and state argued that the Court should not hear the case and that it was a well balanced rule that didn’t really intruded on the core of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. New York City leaped into action and the police department changed the rule. The city then argued the case was moot. This didn’t seem to hold much sway with the court so the state of New York passed a law making the repeal of the “rule” law. The city and state then argued the case was moot and the court agreed.

April 27, 2020

Held: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.

This left us where we have been for the last 10 years before Bruen

The infringers during this time turned to argument 5 in court and arguments 4 and 5 in public.

Argument 4 can be truly argued in good faith and it is the only path forward for the infringers. This argument leads to a proposal of an amendment to the constitution to change the second amendment. Either to repeal it or to replace it. The problem with this is that the second amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment acknowledges that the right to keep and bear arms pre-exists and denies the government the ability to infringe on that right.

While the infringers get most of the air time in expressing their opinions regarding the horrors of guns, the fact of the matter is that it would be very difficult to get enough states to vote for an amendment to repeal or modify the second amendment. This is not currently a concern but it is something we need to keep our eye on.

Part of this argument is that a person shooting in self-defense is acting as judge, jury and executioner. I.e. the woman that shoots the man raping her should have instead held him for the cops and then gone to court to argue that he did indeed rape her.

As stupid as that might sound to you it is an argument they make.

This takes us to “means-end” balancing. Because the Heller opinion said that some restrictions could be left in place as long as they were within the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of ratification the infringers leaped on the concept of “means-end”.

“Means-end” is simply the government (the courts are a part of the government) deciding how much of your rights they will stomp on. Be it a law forcing an artist to create art on demand for any person to a law requiring you to give up your papers on demand, all such mean-ends are allowing the government to violate your rights.

It was and is especially egregious in terms of the second amendment. The government could make a claim that a law would make society better or safer or would make children safer. This allowed the government to create the law in the first place. It passed means-ends in the chambers and at the President’s or Governors office.

When it was challenged the court would decide if the law did infringe on your rights. Or they would just stipulate that a law infringed. They would then decide how much it infringed which would allow them to pick the level of balancing that would be performed.

In other words, the scale was never fair. In every case the court would decide just how much to add in favor of the government before they started analysis. Once the decision was made as to how hard they would be pressing down on the scales of justice with their thumb, the court would then hear the claim of the government.

Since all gun control laws are of a predictive nature there have never been in real facts to back up the government claims. “A large capacity magazine ban will save lives!” Why will it? What proof do you have? Has it ever been proven that it works.

“Well it would have been worse if they had access to large capacity magazines so of course it worked.”

“It would have been worse if…” is a non-argument that is used constantly. We don’t know what would have happened if… When we suggest that the Uvaldi shooting might have been stopped sooner if the teachers had access to firearms we are told that there is no proof of that. At the same time they tell us it would have been so much worse if the teachers had shot back.

Which takes us to the post Bruen situation. At this time the infringers are throwing everything at the wall in a effort to see what sticks.

They are trying the “sensitive locations” with the idea of making the ability to carry without violating a restricted location so difficult that you decide not to carry.

They are trying the “good moral character” gambit. It isn’t that you have to have a good reason to carry, you have to be a good person. In many “May Issue” states being arrested invalidates your right to bear a firearm. It doesn’t matter if you were convicted. It doesn’t matter if the case was dropped. It is just the act of being accused and arrested that will keep you from getting a permit.

It is federal law that a person that gets an ex-parte restraining order placed on you has in fact made you a prohibited person.

They are attempting to find laws in the late 1800s, post civil war, and early 1900s to justify their current infringements.

There are a couple of court cases where the courts have ruled that the government banning something and then claiming that the banned item is “uncommon” in order to justify keeping the ban is not an acceptable argument. This is one of the arguments made post Heller

They are also using the argument that restricting some firearms doesn’t infringe or that placing limits on how fast or easy it is to get a firearm isn’t infringing.

While all of this is happening in the courts, the media is pushing a narrative that the Supreme court got it wrong. In Heller they got it wrong because Militia!!! In McDonald they got it wrong because states should be able to protect the children. In Bruen the court got it wrong because means-end is the correct way to judge rights.

There are dozens of articles out there claiming that late 1800s through early 1900s should be considered as part of the history and tradition of gun control laws, even though Heller said otherwise. 1791 defines the history and tradition, 1868 can be used to confirm that history and tradition but NOT to contradict it.

In addition there is the never ending drum beat of “The Supreme Court is illegitimate!” The argument being that because the court is now 6-3 originalist vs leftist that it no longer represents the people. As compared to when it was 7-2 leftist vs originalist when every decision was final forever and ever and there was no legitimate reason to complain.

The last argument that keeps popping up is that gun owners should be required to get training before being allowed to own guns.

The Washington Post argues that gun training should be required.  For some reason the believe that knowing the best way to store black powder, gun powder, and matches is relevant to owning firearms.

The Supreme Court’s New Second Amendment Test Is Off to a Wild Start

The majority’s arguments in last year’s big gun-control ruling has touched off some truly chaotic interpretations from lower courts.

The New Republic thinks that the Supreme Courts Bruen decision is just to hard for judges to follow and besides, look at these horrible decisions federal judges have been making where they didn’t use “means-end”

Supreme Court’s silence on most serious ethics issues says it all

The U.S. Supreme Court’s response thus far to a series of reports about a well-funded, covert judicial lobbying campaign that has successfully targeted the justices is telling.

And because Justice Thomas refuses to keep his wife under control and not to recuse himself the court has serious ethics issues.  And Amy Coney Barrett is hearing cases regarding religion…

The Stench of Corruption Is Growing Stronger Around the Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts insists the court can police itself, but all evidence points to the contrary.

The Nation feels that it was conservatives that leaked the Dobbs decision because somebody said a conservative told them what the court would hold in regards to a different abortion case years ago.

The Evil that exists will attack anything and everything that stands in their way.

Welcome to Friday Feedback!

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving if you are in the US and I hope your Thursday was great if not.

On Wed I attended one of my clients weekly meetings. This client’s owner came from Brazil and has a number of people that live in Brazil working for him. As well as the people that are still in Brazil, he has a number of people that migrated to the US from Brazil working for him.

The subject of the meeting was “What are you thankful for?” I got asked the question late Wed, about an hour before the meeting and not really thinking about it gave a flip answer “I’m thankful for modern medicine.” My family is at the tail end of a cold/flu thing and we got here with OTC meds. My son ended up with a sinus infection, which is being treated with antibiotics. We were all able to reach out and talk to or have an appointment with our doctors within 24 hours of calling.

This is the modern medicine I’m thankful for.

But it is a flippant answer.

A more thoughtful answer is longer.

I’m thankful for living in the United States of America. I’m thankful for living in a country that gave rise to the concept of God given rights over king given rights. I’m thankful for the freedoms I have to protect myself, my family, my community. I’m thankful for the freedom to speak what I wish.

On a smaller scale I’m thankful for all of the readers that have stuck with us as we transitioned from Miguel’s blog to Miguel and J.Kb’s blog to where we are now.

So today’s question for you all:
What are you thankful for? Be it big, be it small, what are you thankful for?

I don’t know anything about this company other than the email they sent us.  I looked at their site briefly and saw that they had all sorts of calibers listed but they were out of the calibers I expected them to be out of so not a “We have everything!”

I can’t find Jack’s name in our user list nor do I remember him commenting.

If you buy from this guy and it is a scam, please let us know and I’ll mark this post with a warning.  If you buy or have purchased in the past, let us know as well.

Good luck.

On November 22, 2022 Judge John L Sinatra, Jr issued a preliminary injunction against NY State’s CCIA.

Another one of New York’s new restrictions imposed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision is the private property exclusion.  That new provision makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by expressed consent.

The Supreme Court’s cases addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms — from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen — dictate that New York’s private property exclusion is equally unconstitutional.  Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.  As set forth below, New York fails that test.

This is the second injunction by Judge Sinatra, Jr finding parts of NY States CCIA unconstitutional.  He is teasing out these injunctions and more are expect.

In addition he told the state to pound sand when they requested a hold for 3 days in order for them to appeal.

Here, a stay pending appeal is not warranted. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are being violated absent a preliminary injunction. The State has not established irreparable injury in the absence of a stay. The balance of hardships and public interest weigh in favor of Plaintiff, also as discussed above. Finally, it is Plaintiff who has demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. As in Hardaway, legislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights. Every day they do is one to many.

It is highly likely that the state will appeal to the 2nd circuit court where it will be heard by a panel of three judges. Depending on the make up of that panel the injunction may or may not be stayed. A betting man will be on the 2nd circuit issuing a stay.

Judge Sinatra, Jr is referencing Judge Suddaby’s discussions in Antonyuk and Judge Suddaby references Judge Sinatra, Jr’s discussions.

These two judges are working toward the same ends. It would not be surprising to learn that they are actually talking to one another.

Next steps in this case:

The State will appeal. The 2nd circuit court will issue a stay. The case will move forward. The judge will find for the Plaintiffs. The State will appeal. The 2nd circuit court will empanel a three judge panel on an emergency basis which will find for the State. Christian, FPC and 2A Foundation will appeal to the en blanc (full 9 judge court) which will agree to hear the case on a non-emergency basis 6 to 12 months in the future. The Plaintiffs might appeal for a stay from the Supreme Court but that is unlikely to happen. A year or so will go by with the State delaying the entire time. Finally the 2nd circuit court will hear the case.

The optimist says that the full 2nd circuit finds the CCIA unconstitutional. If not, the second best would be that the 2nd Circuit finds for the state in full which is then appealed to the Supreme court. A worse case would be for the 2nd circuit to find for the Plaintiffs in some very very limited way, making it more difficult to appeal.

Christian et All v. Nigrelli and Flynn (CCIA) preliminary injunction. (PDF)