In Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council I discussed a little about Chevron deference. This is the case law that allows the federal government to say “We are the experts, our interpretation of the law is always correct.”

I am not qualified to know whether the original decision was a good decision or not, I believe it was not. Regardless, it has been abused for decades at this point.

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc v. Gina Raimondo, 21-5166 (D.C. Cir. 2022). This case has nothing to do with the Second Amendment directly, but it holds a great deal of potential for reigning in the ATF and other federal agencies.

The gist of the case is that congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in 1976. The MSA extended the regulatory reach of the “National Marine Fisheries Service”. It was passed to to conserve and manage the fishery resources…of the United States — 16 U.S.C. § 1801 (b)(1).

This is the law that is designed to stop overfishing of territorial waters of the US.

In September 2018, the NMFS submitted the Omnibus Amendment to the Service. This opened a commenting period. The commenting period ended and the Omnibus Amendment to the Service was approved. The Final Rule was published in February 2020.

Sort of like the ATF did bump stocks and pistol braces. They publish the proposed rule. Open for comments, then do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

At issue in the Omnibus Amendment is that the NMFS decided that they were going to make the fishing boats pay to have an inspector on board and to force the fishing boats to accept an inspector. Space is at a premium aboard ships, so having a deadhead onboard worsens it for everyone. In addition, the government man isn’t actually doing any work. All he does is run his clipboard looking for ways to ding the boat.

This inspector is paid a percentage of the value of the catch.

In other words, the government gets to force a fishing boat to take an inspector onboard and the fishing boat has the pleasure of paying that inspector to eat their food, take up space, and in general to be a government busybody.

The Question

Read More

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

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

B.L.U.F. — Judge Rudolph Contreras believes that banning magazines with more than some magic number is constitutional. This leads to another WTF post analysis of a Judge’s opinion.

The Question

Is D.C.’s LCM ban Constitutional?

The ban basically says that it is illegal to possess, sell, or transfer — D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The exception is for tube feed .22 caliber magazines.

Background

This duffus had to go out and find another judge who is just as ignorant as he is in order to make a statement as stupid as saying that attaching a “large capacity magazine” to a handgun makes it into a semiautomatic.

He is quoting the memorandum and opinion out of the District Court of Rhode Island. He had this to say about an “LCM” challenge.

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr, chief judge of the District Court of Rhode Island

The Supreme Court has not said anything about magazines being arms, which is what allows this level of disingenuous reasoning. Regardless, reading the Ocean State Tactical opinion was an exercise in self-control. Breaking monitors does not do any good. As Mark Smith said in a video the other day, when the Judge is a Firearms person, it shows. In the same way, when a Judge is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of a firearm, we get hurt.

It is easy to tell when the state is lying when you have personal knowledge of the subject, it is harder when you are trying to figure out whose experts to trust.

Standing

Read More

B.L.U.F. When a family is hurting, they want somebody to pay. It is easier to put that anger against a company than a dead body. Especially when there are blood vultures at work.

History

On April 15, 2021, some asshole entered the FedEx facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, and proceeded to start shooting. Eight people were killed, and more were wounded. The asshole then killed himself.

He had two rifles with him, both AR-15-style semi-automatics.

Shortly after, the blood vultures started to congregate. President Biden had flags flown at half-mast. The usual suspects jumped up and down screaming that guns were the problem.

To this day I’ve never had a single firearm give me a motive for anything it has done. That’s because all of them are inanimate objects. Any evil attributed to a firearm is a figment of a human’s mental derangement.

Bains v. American Tactical, Inc

Read More

B.L.U.F. Another case where a Judge used Bruen to come to the correct decision. This This one is §922(g)3 and §922(d)2. This is a criminal case in front of a US Federal Judge for the Western District of Texas. It highlights how case law works.

History

On December 28, 2021 the El Paso Police Department responded to a 911 call. Transcripts are not available nor needed. When the police arrived they heard several gunshots and observed Paola’s husband with a shotgun at the neighbors house. The police then arrested Paola’s husband.

From this they managed to get permission to conduct[ed] a protective sweep of Connelly’s house &mcite; Order on Motion for Reconsideration P. 1. The cops found evidence of firearms and marijuana. From this they called in the ATF.

The ATF searched the house and found 1.2 grams of marijuana, 0.21 grams of marijuana extract, 27.74 grams of “THC Edible” and 37.74 grams of suspected psilocybin — Id. as well as multiple firearms and ammunition.

Paola through her husband under the bus, accusing him of smoking crack. She was then asked about her own drug use and told the cops …she uses marijuana on a regular basis “to sleep at night and to help her with anxiety.” — Id. at 2.

If this was the locals then it would have likely meant nothing more than the loss of her pot. Because the feds were involved, it now became a felony charge:

The second count, transfer or sale to a prohibited person is charged because the lived together. Since he had access and could have gotten the firearms the state argues that she had transferred the firearms to her husband. It is unclear who owned the shotgun he used.

October 18, 2022 Paola filed to have the charges dismissed. Her argument was that post Bruen §922(g)(3) and §922(d)(3) were unconstitutional under the second amendment because the denied her rights to keep and bear arms while the state was unable to find an similar regulation from the founding era. She also argued that the law was unconstitutional under the fifth amendment because it was vague. What does addicted mean? What does “user” mean?

She points out that under the dictionary definition, user could mean anybody that ever took a toke.

Her motion to have her indictment dismissed was denied on December 21, 2022.

The Second Try

Read More