Catch all

I’m tired. We got our power back after around 30-36 hours. We did not suffer but we had to work a bit harder than normal.

I was responsible for clearing a 1/4 mile of driveway that had snow ranging from 30cm to nearly 90cm deep. The first pass was a pain because our snowblower is only good to about 70cm of depth. This means that you drive the blower into the snow, it shoots the snow off to the side and you let it start to climb. When it has climbed to about a 30degree angle you stop the drive wheels and pull the damn thing back

Then you do it again. It has no trouble with the ramp it left behind but shortly after that it will do the climb thing. Each pass gets you about 75cm of progress.

Once you get the first path done it is much easier. In my case I had a kid walk the path with a shovel and pull down a foot or two of snow. Then the blower throws that out of the drive. Relatively easy.

All in all I spent about 6 hours yesterday and today removing snow.

Duncan v. Bonta

You got to love the lie of omission. It won’t work with Judge Benitez but they still had to try. The state of California wrote a letter to Judge Benitez telling him of the decision in the 11th circuit court (Florida way) where the three judge panel found that Florida’s ban on 18-20yo owning a class of firearms is constitutional.

The decision was so egregious that the plaintiffs(good guys) didn’t even have to request an en banc hearing. At least one judge on the 11th circuit judge went “WTF?” and held the opinion pending a decision of the 11th Circuit court as a whole on whether to hear the case en banc to give an opinion.

The state just left out that part where it was found so egregious that the 11th circuit stayed their own opinion.

Koons v. Reynolds

Judge Bumb is not somebody you want to mess with. While the case was brought by plaintiffs(good guys) Koons et all against Reynolds in his official capacity for the state of NJ the Senate and the General Assembly wanted to get their arguments in as well.

They applied to become “Intervenors” which just means they want official recognition from the court to lawyer stuff such as give oral arguments. It isn’t clear to me when they were allowed to join as Intervenors but they are.

When Judge Bumb was threatened with with the state appealing to the Third Circuit court on March 8th if she doesn’t rule on the preliminary injunction in a timely basis she slapped them down and set the date for oral arguments for the March 17, 2023 at 10am.

There is this back and forth going on where the state wants more time to get the historical and traditional laws in front of the court while the court is telling them “The legislature said they had those laws at hand before the passed the law, what gives?” So the state wants to slow walk some parts and “get it done right now!” on the other hand. I think it depends on if they think they are going to have the law stayed or not.

Well the intervenors wrote to the Court telling her that one of the attorneys was in Florida and wouldn’t be back by the 17th and could they please attend virtually. A bit later the other lawyer for the intervenors wrote to the court asking for a ruling.

Judge Bumb gave them that ruling yesterday:

This matter comes before the Court upon the March 9 and 14, 2023, letters filed by Intervenor’s counsel requesting to present oral argument virtually (ECF Nos. 108 and 111). The request is denied. Any counsel presenting oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motions for a Preliminary Injunction must appear in person. Counsel not participating in oral argument may observe the proceeding virtually. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 03/15/2023. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 03/15/2023)
Docket Koons v Reynolds 1:2022 cv 07564

Trying to understand liars

I wasn’t going to write about this but I was trying to understand citations and what was going on.

The footnote is:

Kleck Rebuttal Report, ¶¶7,11 and Deposition of Gary Kleck in Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc., et al., v. Brown, et al., taken on January 25, 2023, 20:22-21:3.
Supplemental Sur-Rebuttal Expert Report of Lucy P. Allen in Support of Defendant

What do the “¶¶” mean? I know that “¶” means paragraph. Found out it means “paragraphs”. Since I miss read the footnote I read that Lucy was linking to paragraphs 7 through 46. That is the entire rebuttal. What was she actually referring to?

Here is the paragraph that had me scratching my head:

Dr. Kleck criticizes the focus of the Allen Report because he claims that the number and impact of public mass shootings in the Allen Report is “trivially tiny” and that the “legislative intent” behind California’s weapons bans is unrelated to these public mass shootings. 6 First, contrary to Dr. Kleck’s assertion, it is my understanding that California passed its first assault weapon ban, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, in response to a public mass shooting – the public mass shooting in Stockton, CA. Second, Dr. Kleck’s claim that public mass shootings are “trivially tiny” is based on his claim that “less than 1% of all U.S. murder victims are killed in any kind of mass shooting,” and that public mass shootings are “even tinier.” Dr. Kleck’s implication that the only impact of mass shootings is based on the number of victims killed is misguided. To claim, for example, that the only impact in the Newtown, CT mass shooting was on the 27 children and adults killed ignores the greater impact that mass shootings have had on American society. For example, according to the Department of Education, 98% of public schools in the U.S. now have drills and procedures regarding active shooters. Moreover, the very source cited by Dr. Kleck to support his claim that the list of mass shootings in the Allen Report is “trivially tiny” also states that “[m]ass shootings are arguably one of the worst manifestations of gun violence” and that “the national dialogue on gun violence has been focused on mass public shootings.”
Id. ¶ 8

Hmmm, that sounds pretty bad trivially tiny, we’ll come back to that.

She then goes on to move the goalposts. When we talk about the victims of a shooting, we are always talking about those that were shot or injured at the event. More limiting than that is that we normally exclude those that were injured or shot by friendlies.

This will get twisted a bit by different number crunchers, for example when they include the shoot in the list of victims because he was shot dead by a good guy with a gun, but in general we talk about those that were shot by the shooter, not those shot by the cops.

Lucy wants to use the impact of the mass shooting rather than victims. The impact of the cowards of Uvalidi is huge. It reverberated throughout the world. Children were murdered by some asshole while law enforcement cowarded in the hallways.

It had a huge impact, no doubt about it.

Let’s turn to what Dr. Kleck actually said though before we judge him to harshly for downplaying such horrific incidents.

Allen claims that there is substantial benefit to banning LCMs because a large share of mass shooting involve the use of LCMs (defined herein as magazines holding more than 10 rounds). She is only able to sustain this claim by limiting her analysis to a trivially tiny and unrepresentative subset of mass shootings, public mass shootings. She claims she did this because “it is my understanding that the state of California is concerned about public mass shootings and enacted the challenged laws, in part, to address the problem of public mass shootings” (p. 4). Her “understanding” is both subjective and unsupported by any evidence pertaining to legislative intent behind enactment of California’s ban on LCMs and assault weapons (AWs). Indeed, defense expert Louis Klarevas’ description of California’s legislative intent (Klarevas 2023, p. 23) indicates that concern about mass shootings was not limited to those occurring in public places. The fact that the State of California is concerned about public mass shootings does not mean it is not concerned with all the other shootings that do not fall into this narrow category. Further, Allen’s own statement concedes that California’s assault weapons ban (AWB) was enacted only “in part” to address these kinds of shootings and thus must have also been based on concerns about other kinds of gun violence. Thus, her proffered explanation does not justify her narrow focus. It will be shown later that the narrowness of her focus produces some highly misleading results.
Kleck Rebuttal Report – ¶7

Dr. Kleck isn’t claiming that mass shootings are trivial in anyway. He is stating that Lucy limited her analysis to public mass shootings for some reason. And that the number of public mass shootings compared to all mass shootings is a trivial number.

Dr. Kleck is using language in a very studious and specific manner. He has pulled emotion out of it. He is telling the court what the numbers are and then giving his opinion of what those numbers mean.

Lucy uses the standard 2 and 3 word quote trick. Pulling such small quotes out of context that you can’t tell what the actual meaning was.

And interesting find.

How I write analysis posts

B.L.U.F. Fluff piece because I can’t stand reading another word of Bonta’s so called “experts”

Through one of my feeds I get a notice of some case that is happening and interesting. If I’m very lucky there will be a link to that case in some way. Most of the time there is not.

If the source is a news article it is highly likely that not only have they failed to link to the case or legislation, they have likely miss named it as well. For example the “Don’t say gay” Florida bill that didn’t have those words in the bill. All searches for “don’t say gay” will take you to propaganda pieces telling you how bad the “Don’t say gay” bill is but with no links and no text.

Once I find some official documentation I next attempt to find the case number.

This has been a learning curve for me. It turns out that case names and numbers change as cases move through the courts. So what was filed as “Steven Rupp; Steven Dumber; Cheryl Johnson; Michael Jones; Christopher Seifert; Alfonso Valenceia; Troy Willis; and California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated vs. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and DOES 1-10” had a case number of 8:17-cv-00746 assigned to it.

This became “Steven Rupp, et al v. Xavier Becerra” with a case number of “8:17-cv-00746-JLS-JDE” when it got to the ninth circuit court. The turned into “Steven Rupp; et al v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California” case number 19-56004.

When the case was vacated and remanded back to the district court the case number became 8:17-cv-00746-JLS-JDE and became known as “Steven Rupp, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of State of California”.

And the case is known as “Rupp v. Bonta” for the most part. It is all the same case.

Read More