B.L.U.F. A thought exercise in why the state is producing so many opinions that don’t seem to matter within the bounds of the Bruen opinion. Maybe it is because they are attacking a particular clause in Bruen

There is a classic scene in most cowboy and Indian movies where the new person is with the more experienced person and spots an Indian. The new guy points him out and the grizzled old dude says something like:

If you see him, he wants you to see him. If there is one there are a hundred

The point being that it wasn’t an accident. The Indian wanted to be seen in order to accomplish some strategic or tactical goal.

Much of combat is attempting to get your enemy to misinterpret your actions. If your troops start moving back from the front line and the enemy doesn’t believe that it is because they are pushing you back, they are going to expect a trap. If on the other hand your troops hold as long as they can before retreating, pulling the enemy into ambush, the enemy is more likely to believe they forced the retreat.

As much as we like to call the gun infringers names, like “moron” or “idiot” or “Col. USMC(Ret.) Tucker Stupid”, these are not stupid people. If you believe for one moment that AG Rob Bonta or his people are stupid then you are in for a rude awakening.

These people don’t play to lose unless it is to their advantage.

So if they are presenting huge amounts of what I have called emotional blackmail and items outside of the bounds set forth under Bruen there must be a reason.

Read More

B.L.U.F. Overview of the types of arguments being made by the state to justify infringements. Start of a series.

There are three identified arguments that are currently being presented by the state to justify their infringements.

1. It isn’t within the scope of the Second Amendment
2. It is just a fee/cost/expense, not a ban.
3. There is a history and tradition of this type of regulation

Read More